TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 12.04.2019 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3)/147 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That under the facts and circumstances the proceedings u/s.147 / 148 initiated and completed on the basis of reasons recorded by the A.O. Ward-lO(l) who was not having the jurisdiction and no fresh reasons being recorded by the jurisdictional A.O. of Ward-10(4). the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction, illegal and unsustainable in law. 2. That under the facts and circumstances, proceedings u/s. 147/148 initiated since without jurisdiction, without application of mind, on wrong facts, initiated mechanically and on borrowed satisfaction, hence illegal and unsustainable in law. 3. That the Ld. A.O., since failed in adjudicating all objections against reopening proceedings, properly, as per law and in totality and as per the directions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Drive Shafts, hence con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd excessive. 2. The brief facts qua the legal issue that proceedings u/s.147/148 have been initiated and completed on the basis of reasons recorded by the Non-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and that the assessee has been filing its return of income with ITO, Ward-10(4) wherein as per the PAN and also otherwise the correct jurisdiction lies before the ITO Ward- 10(4) only. The assessee has filed its return of income on 27.09.2010 before the ITO, Ward-10(4) which was duly processed also u/s. 143(1). Thereafter, notice u/s.148 has been issued on 31.03.2016 which has been assigned and issued by ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi who apparently did not had jurisdiction upon the assessee. The copy of reasons recorded as incorporated in the assessment order reads as hereunder: The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 on 27.09.2010 declaring income of ₹ 5,690/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). Information was forwarded to this office through the Addl.CIT, Range-10, New Delhi that search seizure action was conducted by Inv. Wing at the office of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal where various incriminating documents/materials were seized during the course o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 M/s. Parsandi Leasing Finanqe Pvt. Ltd. 700000 04.07.2009 M/s, Mayank Medilab Pvt. Ltd. 1800000 07.07.2009 M/S. Instant Travels 8i Tours Pvt. Ltd. 1100000 10.07.2009 M/S. Instant Travels Tours Pvt. Ltd. 50000 16.07.2009 M/s.Euthoria Capital Pvt. Ltd 50000 20.07.2009 M/s. Mayank Medilab Pvt. Ltd. On the basis of the reports received from the investigation Wing , I have downloaded the return from the ITD portal and verified the records and it is clear that the assessee company has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration as it emerges that transactions shown in the return are not genuine. The value of share premium appears to be very high keeping in view the turnover shown by the assessee as the turnover during the year under consideration is Nil. I am in po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Bench in the case of Manoj Kumar vs. ACIT reported in 79 ITR (Tribunal) 158 Delhi. 4. During the course of hearing, we had directed the ld. DR to obtain a report from the Assessing Officer, as to whether any reasons have been recorded by ITO, Ward-10(4), i.e., jurisdictional Assessing Officer and whether any approval has been given u/s.151 on such reasons recorded. After obtaining the information from the Assessing Officer, the ld. DR informed in the open court that the reasons as incorporated in the assessment order are the only reason which has been recorded and signed by the ITO, Ward-10(4). However, he submitted that, this will not making any difference, because reasons have been duly recorded based on tangible material and information on the basis of which proceedings have been initiated u/s.147 and assessment has been framed, therefore, there is no illegality in such proceedings. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as the material placed on record on the issue raised in ground no.1 by the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the correct jurisdiction of the assessee lies with ITO, Ward-10(4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be illegal, in the case of Pankajbhai Jaisukh vs. ACIT (supra) wherein the issue involved was that, the reason for reopening the assessment was recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. However the notice u/s.148 was issued by non jurisdictional Assessing Officer. On these facts their Lordships held that such proceedings are bad in law. The relevant observations are as under: Held, allowing the petition, that while the reasons for reopening the assessment had been recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, viz., the Deputy Commissioner, Circle 2, the notice under section 148(1) had been issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2), who had no jurisdiction over the assessee, and hence, such a notice was bad on the count of having been issued by an Officer who had no authority to issue such notice. It was the Officer recording the reasons who had to issue the notice under section 148(1) whereas the reasons had been recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the notice had been issued by an Officer who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. The notice under section 148 being a jurisdictional notice, any inherent defect therein could not be cured un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
