9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 2017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g at U.K. and also having the U.K. address of the assessee chose to issue notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22.11.2016 at the Nakodar address of the assessee and not at the U.K. address. Argument of the DR that the ITO, Nakodar had transferred the case to DCIT (IE), Chandigarh and, hence, there was no requirement of issuing of fresh notice u/s 148 as per the provisions of section 127 (4) - No force in the above contention of the DR. Firstly, the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the ITO, Nakodar were without jurisdiction and the same were void abinitio, hence, any transfer of such void proceedings to the Assessing officer of competent jurisdiction did not validate his action and the proceedings. Even otherwise, as per the provisions of section 127 of the Act, ITO Nakodar himself had no jurisdiction to suo motu transfer the case to the DCIT (IE). Rather, the transfer of the case as per the provisions of section 127 (1) of the Act, can be ordered by the competent authority prescribed in the said provisions. In view of this, there is force in the Cross objections raised by the assessee on this issue and the same is accordingly allowed. Unexplained cash deposit in Bank of Baroda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 18.10.2016 for completion of assessment in the case of the assessee. The DCIT(IE) accordingly issued notice dated 22.11.2016 u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee at his Nakodar address. However, since no one appeared, the DCIT (IE) completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and made the addition of the aforesaid amount found deposited in the bank account of the assessee, into the income of the assessee considering the same as unaccounted income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the above order of the DCIT (IE) / Assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as no notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee at his correct address. That the assessee was a non-resident Indian (NRI) residing in U.K., however, all the notices were issued at the Nakodar address of the assessee, whereas, the assessee had left residing there long back. It was also pleaded that the aforesaid deposits were out of the sale of agricultural land as well as the part of the residential house which did not belong to the assessee in his individual capacity, rather, the same w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the legal grounds taken by the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has come in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,00,000/- (being unexplained cash deposit in Bank of Baroda) relying on the submission of the assessee that cash deposit represents the cash received from the sale proceeds of the agricultural properties in the absence of documentary evidence, without further verification and also by ignoring the facts narrated by the A.O. in remand report. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, , Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,43,000/- (being unexplained cash deposit in Canara Bank) relying on the submission of the assessee only that cash deposit represents the cash received from the sale proceeds of the residential property without any verification of valuation report, in the absence of registered sale deed and also ignoring the issue of Capital Gain as well as facts narrated by the A.O. in remand report. 3. The appellant craves to add, amend, modify or alter any gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nephew, in our view, has rightly held that the assessee had duly explained the source of the said deposit and also that no capital gains had accrued to the assessee on the transfer of the said share in the ancestral house. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. Now coming to the Cross objections i.e. C.O. No. 42/Chd/2018 raised by the assessee. 11. Admittedly, the notice u/s 148 of the Act and further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued by the ITO, Nakodar. None of the notice were actually served upon the assessee. Every notice sent through registered post was received back with the comments addressee left India without address . Even the concerned officials in his report dated 18.08.2016 in respect of the affixation order has reiterated that he had visited the Nakodar address of the assessee and got to know that Shri Balwant Singh Jutla was living abroad i.e. in U.K., however, he had affixed the notice on the main gate of the assessee house. Admittedly, none of the notice was sent at the U.K. address of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel has also demonstrated from the record that the bank account regarding whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding at U.K. and also having the U.K. address of the assessee chose to issue notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22.11.2016 at the Nakodar address of the assessee and not at the U.K. address. Admittedly, no notice u/s 148 of the Act by the DCIT (IE), Chandigarh to the assessee was issued. Since the ITO, Nakodar had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, hence, any notice issued by him has no legal validity. So far as the DCIT (IE), Chandigarh is concerned, he admittedly did not issue any notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee, therefore, the very reopening of the assessment without issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act by the Assessing officer of the competent jurisdiction, is bad in law and the consequential assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and the same is accordingly liable to be quashed. 12. So far as the argument of the Ld. DR that the ITO, Nakodar had transferred the case to DCIT (IE), Chandigarh and, hence, there was no requirement of issuing of fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act as per the provisions of section 127 (4) of the Act is concerned, we do not find any force in the above contention of the Ld. DR. Firstly, the re-asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
