9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ghaziabad and consequently transferred the records of the assessee to Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Ghaziabad on 08.04.2018. We however, note that after transferring the case records to the Income Tax Officer, Ward- Exemption, Ghaziabad, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Bulandsahar issued notice u/s 148 on 26.03.2018. Thereafter, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Ghaziabad completed the assessment u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act on 25.10.2018. There is serious lapse in following the law. We find that this is a case where the AO [ITO Ward 3(2), Bulundsahar] has transferred the case of the assessee from Bulundsahar to Ghaziabad [ITO Ward-Exemption), Ghaziabad]. Subsequent to the transfer from his office, the ITO Ward 3(2), B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot appreciating, that, the re-assessment proceedings initiated U/s 148 is 3) without proper service of the notices, therefore, the proceedings initiated are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4) Without prejudice to the above ground, that, the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred, in not appreciating, that, the transfer of the jurisdiction by ITO, Bulandshahar to ITO, Exemption, Ghaziabad without following the procedure of section 127, therefore, the whole proceedings initiated is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 5) That, the CIT (A)/NFAC has erred, in not appreciating, that, the Assessing Officer has erred, in completing the re-assessment on Income at Rs. 38,34,097.00. The additions/disallowances made at Rs. 38,34,097.00 are i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d deposit of Rs. 38,34,097/- in cash in Allahabad Bank, Kolkata main branch, Kolkata. As no return of income was filed the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Bulandsahar recorded his reason for reopening, duly approved by the PCIT, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Bulandsahar issued a notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act dated 26.03.2018. In absence of any response from the assessee, Income Tax Officer, Ward- Exemptions, Ghaziabad completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w section 147 on 25.10.2018 by making an addition of Rs. 38,34,097/- as unexplained cash deposit. 3. Aggrieved the assessee approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved further assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, Ghaziabad, is without having jurisdiction and, therefore, the same should be quashed. The learned AR relied on the decisions of ITAT in the cases of Saroj Sangwan v. ITO [2024] 162 taxmann.com 704 (Delhi - Trib.); and Nishi Kapoor v. ITO [ITA no. 1556/Del/2019 dated 02.09.2019]. 5. Per contra the learned DR heavily relied upon the order of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record carefully. We find that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Bulandsahar, was having the records of the assessee when he received the AIR information. It appears that the ITO Bulandsahar found out that the assessee is madarsa, a registered society, so the proper jurisdiction belonged to Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
