Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1541 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction to reassess - Jurisdiction over Appellant as employed in the Army - Army Salary Circle AO or Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(5) Gurugram - HELD THAT:- It is now well settled that it is only the AO holding charge over an assessee for assessment purposes who could issue a notice for reassessment. No AO, other than the assessee’s own AO, could issue a notice for reassessment. ITO Ward 3(5), Gurugram has issued the notice u/s 148 to the Appellant as employed in the Army after having recorded a satisfaction as to the alleged escapement of income of the Appellant. ITO Ward 3(5) Gurugram does not seem to have made any inquiry on the relevant issues before issuing a notice u/s 148 to the Appellant. No material in this behalf has been brought before us by the Department. As in Lt. Col. Paramjeet Singh [1996 (3) TMI 120 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has ruled that if the assessment proceedings of an assessee is to be reopened or if the income for the relevant assessment year is to be reassessed, it is the Income-tax Officer who could assess the same in the first instance who has jurisdiction to proceed in the matter u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 unless of course the case had been transferred by a competent authority to another AO u/s 127 of the Act. No such transfer order u/s 127 of the Act has been produced before us to validate the jurisdiction as assumed by the ITO, Ward 3(5), Gurugram. It is thus clear that the assumption of jurisdiction to reassess the Appellant by the Gurugram AO is irregular and fallacious. Assumption of jurisdiction by a different AO at Gurugram who was other than the AO holding jurisdiction over the assessee for the relevant year was invalid. Status of Appellant selling the agricultural lands - whether the property is an HUF property or individual? - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record brought before us, whether, the above named assessees (4 brothers) have applied for any PAN for HUF or whether any account was opened in the name of HUF or earlier there was any existing PAN. Neither there is any mentioned in the deed that all the individuals had entered into the agreement as HUF or jointly representing HUF. At the time of issuance of notice, the AO could not have created HUF by allotting separate PAN or create any entity without any information provided by the assessees. Even the sale consideration was received individually. The action of the assessee also does not indicate that the transaction was entered in the capacity of HUF, albeit it was entered in the individual capacity collectively. In these circumstances, it is difficult to uphold the contention of the assessee and accordingly we reject the same.
|