9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), IT, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO'] dated 14.12.2023. 1.1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee is a non-resident Indian filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year u/s 139 of the Act at Rs. 1,48,740/-. ITO, Ward-3(2)(6), Surat issued a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on the following reasons: In your case information has been received through insight portal from the DDIT(Inv.)-7(4), New Delhi, that during the course of inquiry / investigation into the tax evasion through bogus Long Term Capital Gains/short term Capital Loss (LTCG/STCL) by way of manipulated trading , it was seen that you are one of the beneficiary who have taken bogus profit through scrip of Alankit Limited during the F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 13,18,244/-. In another investigation report received through insight portal from the DDIT(Inv.)-5(1), New Delhi, on the investigation into the similar inquiry as above, it is seen that you are one of the beneficiary who have taken bogus p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he took a legal ground. The grounds are notices u/s 148A(d) of the Act and u/s 148 of the Act issued by the ld. AO, Surat is without jurisdiction. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that notice u/s 148A of the Act issued by the ld. AO, Surat, although the address of the assessee in the notice is of Bokaro in Jharkhand State. Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought the Notification No. 56/2014 and submitted that the said notification would come into force with effect from 15.11.2014. As per the said notification jurisdiction over a non-resident Indian in the territorial limits of the States of West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar, Odisha, Sikkim, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands was vested with the Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation and Transfer Pricing)- Kolkata vide entry no. 4 in the said notification. The assessee thus submits that the jurisdiction over the assessee s case was vested with the officers functioning under the control of the Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation and Transfer Pricing)- Kolkata and not with officers in Surat. This fact has been admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he jurisdiction of the officer mentioned in column No.5 for the reason that the assessee's residential status was resident. S.no PAN Name of the Assessee Assessing Officer Pr.CIT charge 1 2 3 4 5 6 From To 1 AIIPK7673F Ajit Kumar ITO- IT- Surat DCIT(IT), Circle- 2(1), Kolkata CIT(FT TP)- 2- Kolkata 2.1. Now, we have gone through the cited decisions and find that in a decision passed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anand Kumar Dugar Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Vapi Anr. in R/Special Civil Application No. 9058 of 2024. The same is reproduced below: AO Jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 to a Non-resident Indian - fixed deposits were made out of remittances from Dubai and maturity of existing term deposits, interest on NRE account and inter se transfer of funds between various bank accounts of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Non-resident Indian residing at Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the address of the petitioner shown in the impugned order and notice is Vijayanagaram, Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, AO at Vapi, has no jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s 148A (a) or 148A (b) of the Act only on the basis of the information a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) of the Act was required to be mandatorily issued and Section 292BB had no manner of operation. The earliest of the decision is that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Anr. vs. Hotel Blue Moon reported in [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC), wherein it was held that if an assessment is to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 158BC, notice under Section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of the block return. Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedure irregularity and is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. This Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-11, Kolkata vs. Nopany Sons reported in 2022(2)TMI 399- Calcutta High Court held that the proviso to Section 292BB could not stand attracted and the said section cannot be made applicable to the assessee's case. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. S.K. Industries reported-in [2022] 141 taxmann.com 569(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
