Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 767 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee working in Delhi police filing their return in Delhi - notice was issued by AO in Gurgaon - effect of partition in assessment proceedings and non-challange of Jurisdiction in assessment proceedings - land sold situated at a distance of less than 8 kms. from the Municipal Corporation limit of Gurgaon - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee was regularly filing his return of income at Delhi with his PAN No. linked with the AO at Delhi and he was residing at PS, Dwarka-Sector-9, South West District, New Delhi, in government accommodation and was getting salary from the Delhi Police, therefore, merely because the assessee has received the notice, which was sent in his Gurgaon address and has participated in the assessment proceedings will not give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer at Gurgaon to have jurisdiction over the assessee. So far as the argument of the ld. DR that the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings and, therefore, has apparently given his consent to the transfer of jurisdiction to the AO of Gurgaon is concerned, the same, in our opinion, would not confer jurisdiction upon the AO who otherwise was not the AO of the assessee. So far as the argument of the Revenue that the assessee has not raised any objection to the jurisdiction within the prescribed time period is concerned, we find merit in the argument of the ld. counsel that the issue to lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage in a case where the return has been filed in response to notice u/s 148/158BC/153A. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mavany Brothers vs. CIT [2015 (10) TMI 1093 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] while adjudicating an identical issue has held that Reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is a jurisdictional fact and only on its satisfaction does the AO acquire jurisdiction to issue notice. Thus this lack of satisfaction of jurisdictional fact can never confer jurisdiction and an objection to it can be raised at any time even in appeal proceedings. The mere fact that no objection is taken before the AO would not by itself bestow jurisdiction as the AO. In view of the above discussion and considering the fact that the assessee was employed with Delhi Police and was regularly filing his return of income at Delhi under ITO, Ward 64(3) [earlier ITO, Ward 40(3)] and since this fact was known to the ITO at Gurgaon, therefore, in absence of any transfer of jurisdiction u/s 127, we hold that the ITO, Gurgaon has no jurisdiction over the assessee. Therefore, the proceedings are quashed. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the various other grounds on merit are not being adjudicated being academic in nature.
|