9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4) and there was no change of jurisdiction in the case of the assessee. Copy of relevant cadre restructuring has also been enclosed to state that the original change of jurisdiction Central Circle-39 after restructuring was re-named as Central Circle-6(4) and hence, there was no change of the jurisdiction of the assessee. Later on, the assessee s case was decentralized vide order passed u/s. 127 by PCIT-Central-3 Mumbai to ITO Ward 12(1)(1), Mumbai on 06/07/2020. Copy of PAN history has also been given by the department before us stating that Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai had jurisdiction till 28/11/2020 and later on it was transferred to ward -12(1)(1), Mumbai Thus, at the time of issuance of notice u/s. 148 and passing of the reassessment order, the jurisdiction lied with Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai only and hence it cannot held that AO lacked jurisdiction or there is any violation of section 120 or Section 124 or Section 127. We do not find any substance and basis for challenging the jurisdiction of the ld. AO by the assessee when the AO who had issued notice u/s. 148 and has passed assessment order had the original jurisdiction upon the assessee. Moreover, assessee had not raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been sent post 12 AM, however, the fact of the matter is that once, notice has been issued within time and even if assessee has received the notice on the next date i.e. on 1/04/2017 by electronic media or email which is valid mode of service of notice u/s 282 and 282A, then it is valid service of notice. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in assumption of jurisdiction to pass the reassessment order by the AO. Here the case of the assessee is that notice has been issued post 31st March 2017, which fact we have already discussed and dismissed the assessee s objection. Thus, it cannot be said that the initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 r.w.s. 149 is bad in law. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is rejected. Approval u/s. 151 by ld. PCIT Central Circle-3 is mechanical as he has merely stated yes, I am satisfied. It is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148 - The information and inquiry does constitute a tangible material having direct live link nexus that deposits are unexplained and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus, it cannot be held that the there was no prima facie belief by the AO that income chargeable to tax has escapement assessment. If re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in not issuing the statutory notice for informing the change in incumbency under sec. 129. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in assuming jurisdiction over the appellant's case without there being any order passed by the Authorities under sec, 120, sec. 124 and sec. 127 by the Pr. DGIT/DGIT/Pr. CCIT/CCIT/Pr. CIT/CIT and also not serving a copy of the order passed on the appellant. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in deriving his (borrowed) satisfaction based on the report of the DDIT (Inv) - Unit 7(4), Mumbai, only without having made any enquiries on his part before issuance of the notice under sec. 148. The satisfaction is derived by the AO in less than 24 hours after the receipt of the impugned information from the DDIT (Inv). 4. The Ld. AO has erred in issue of notice under sec. 148 without there being any tangible material evidence on record(s) which justified the recording of satisfaction that income had escaped assessment except for the information from the DDIT (Inv). 5. The Ld. AO has erred in obtaining the sanction for issue of the notice under sec. 151 from the Pr. CIT - Central Circle 3, Mumbai in a mechanical manner which merely stated Yes, I am satisfied. It is fit case for issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e business of trading of iron and steel. The customer does not visit the branch and all transactions were executed by his representative Most of these accounts are operated by common directors/proprietors ie. Mukesh Maniklal Choksi, Jayesh Krishnaraj Sampat, Rakesh Hansh Mehta, Jitendra C Singh and Milan Shantilal Mehta. The group is into different businesses Le. Construction, Software, Telefilms, Synthetics, Textiles, Steel, Securities etc Enquiry with the bank After obtaining approval from the Addl. DIT (Inv), Unit 7 Mumbai, the bank account statement of the assessee was called for from the respective bank. The details received from the bank were carefully perused by DDIT (Inv), Unit 7(4), Mumbai. The total amount of debits deposits/credits in bank account of the assessee during FY 2009-10 (A.Y. 2010-11) are as under:- Sr. No. Bank Details Account Number Name of the account holder PAN Total amount debited Total amount credited Axis Bank Ltd, Borivali (W) Mumbai 18010200017620 Creative World Telefilms Limited AAACL1812G 17,89,64,440/- 18,16,58,398/- Enquiry with the assessee (M/s. Creative World Telefl ms Limited): A summon u/s 131 of the income Tax Act, 1961 was issued u/s 131 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that income escaping assessment is more than Rs. 1,00,000/- then on or before completion of 6 years from the end of the assessment year. Hence, the last date for communication of notice for assessment will be 31.03.2017 Hence, in lieu of the above, we would like to inform that we have not received any physical copy of the notice. Also, the one received electronically was dispatched by you on 01.04.2017 as per the annexure attached. Hence, we have reasons to believe that the assessment has become time barred. Please note the above and in case of any discrepancy kindly give us an opportunity of being heard. 7. Thus, the main objection of the assessee was that notice u/s. 148 was communicated after the expiry of limit provided u/s. 149, i.e., after 31st March 2017. The ld. AO while disposing of the objection vide letter dated 07/11/2017 had stated as under:- The notice for reopening your assessment u/s 148 of the IT Act for AY 2010-11 was dispatched by Speed Post on 31 03 2017 at your registered office address. A copy of the same notice was generated on ITBA on 31 03 2017 and was sent to you electronically Thus, the reopening of assessment was done within the tune limits as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... throughout. No kind of explanation was given to the DDIT (Inv.) or to the AO or during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing to offer in its defense and was mischievously trying to get relief on a technical ground. As it is an undisputed fact that there are credits to the tune of Rs. 18,16,58,398/- in the bank account of the assessee and the assessee had failed to explain the source of the same, the same has rightly been treated as income of the assessee for the relevant AY. The addition made by the AO is upheld. This ground of appeal is DISMISSED. 11. Now, before us the ld. Counsel has raised multiple legal issues taken by way of additional ground. The first ground which has been raised that ld. AO has not issued the statutory notice for informing the change in the incumbency u/s. 129 and validity of jurisdiction of the AO under sections 120, 124 127 as raised in ground No. 1 2. Here in this case, original assessment order was passed by DCIT-Central Circle-39, Mumbai. The proceedings u/s. 148 and final re-assessment order dated 21/12/2017 has been passed by DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai. In response to the RTI application filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispatched through speed post on 31/03/2017 on the registered and official address of the assessee. The ld. DR had filed Journal of speed post from the Department of Post that notice was issued to the assessee, M/s. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. on 31/03/2017 with EM Speed Post No.EM972396308IN. The photo copy of registered post sent to the assessee had also been filed. From the perusal of the copy of envelope it is seen that postal authorities had mentioned left . Thereafter, Bench vide order sheet entry dated 06/07/2022 had raised following query to the ld. AR. Before us Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that here in this case, notice u/s 148 was issued on 31st March 2017, which as per him, had not been served upon the assessee. A report was called from the AO and vide letter dated 21 September 2021, it has been submitted that notice u/s 148 issued on 31st March 2017 was sent through Speed Post on the same official registered address and simultaneously issued notice through ITD system. AO has enclosed the copy of notice dated 31st March 2017 alongwith speed post acknowledgement, which is written as sent on 31st March 2017. A notice has been sent to the registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 and not 31/03/2017 and the journal submitted by ld. DR is not stamped by postal department etc. All these arguments are to be frowned upon being baseless and misleading, because not only envelop mentions the date 31/03/2017, but also the journal of post office maintained by the Income Tax Department mention the details of notices sent date wise, EM number and bears signature of the officer. The speed was sent on 31/03/2017 at the registered office of the assessee. It is a wild allegation of the Ld. Counsel that AO has done any kind of overwriting of 31/08/2017 to 31/03/2017. This allegation is divorced from the records submitted before us; firstly, the speed post journal maintained by the department mentions 31/03/2017, secondly, the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT (A) on the basis of record have given a finding that the date of issuance of notice was on 31/03/2017; and lastly, the envelope itself mentions 31/03/2017, the date on which speed post was sent. It is not the date generated by the department or forged the envelope. Such an allegation by the ld. Counsel is abhorred. 15. Now coming to the issue, whether it is sufficient if the notice has been issued and sent on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 148 shall be issued after the prescribed limitation has lapsed. Section 148(1) provides for service of notice as a condition precedent to making the order of assessment. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitations, jurisdiction becomes vested in the ITO to proceed to reassess. The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service. The requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice is actually issued. In this case, admittedly, the notice was issued within the prescribed period of limitation as 31-3-1970, was the last day of that period. Service under the 1961 Act is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction in the ITO to deal with the matter but it is a condition precedent to making of the order of assessment. The High Court in our opinion lost sight of the distinction and under a wrong basis felt bound by the judgment in Banarsi Debi's case (supra). As the ITO had issued notice within limitations, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated. The ITO shall now proceed to complete the assessment after complying with the requirements of law. Since there has been no appearanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh affixture which is no more prescribed under the CPC order (v). Now, here in this case the notice sent through speed post may not have been served upon the assessee as it was not found on its registered / official address, then here in this case it has also been brought on record that notices were also sent through ITBA portal on 31/03/2017 and by email which mail assessee received post 12 AM (i.e., 1:02 AM) on 01/04/2017. Even if it is presumed email has been sent post 12 AM, however, the fact of the matter is that once, notice has been issued within time and even if assessee has received the notice on the next date i.e. on 1/04/2017 by electronic media or email which is valid mode of service of notice u/s 282 and 282A, then it is valid service of notice. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in assumption of jurisdiction to pass the reassessment order by the AO. Here the case of the assessee is that notice has been issued post 31st March 2017, which fact we have already discussed and dismissed the assessee s objection. Thus, it cannot be said that the initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 r.w.s. 149 is bad in law. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is rejected. 17. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
