2023 (5) TMI 1048 - ITAT DELHI

Validity of the reopening of the assessment - jurisdiction of proceedings - initiation of proceedings by an Authority which has no jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- From the decision of CIT(A), it is clear that notice u/s 148 was not issued by the jurisdictional AO. As per CIT(A), the assessment was framed by Jurisdictional AO i.e. ITO, Ward-65(5), New Delhi. “The Revenue has miserably failed to answer the question of jurisdiction as Ld.CIT(A in the impugned order himself states that the notice u/s 148 was not issued by the jurisdictional AO”.

Therefore, it can be safely inferred that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the Authority which has no jurisdiction for the assessee. Revenue has not brought any order by the Competent Authority whereby the jurisdiction was conferred on the Authority who issued notice u/s 148 of the Act.

In the absence of such order, we hold that assessment order passed by the AO was based on invalid notice hence, it also vitiated the assessment order in the light of binding precedents as cited by the assessee. The assessment order is hereby, quashed.

Addition u/s 69A - as stated by the assessee that there were cash withdrawals and deposits. Before Ld.CIT(A), it was stated that the cash was withdrawn and deposited in the bank account. Assessee has pointed out that a sum was available out of withdrawals on the bank account for making the deposits. CIT(A) has not given any findings. Therefore, facts or findings of the Lower Authorities are based on conjectures and surmises and ignored the facts placed on record. AO was not justified in making the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed on merit.

Appeal of the assessee is allowed.