9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 795 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Jurisdiction of AO - as argued notice u/s 148 issued by the AO Jaipur without jurisdiction - HELD THAT - Notice u/s 148 was issued by the ITO, Ward 2(2), Jaipur on 10.04.2014 after recording reasons at that time ITO, Ward 2(2), was not having jurisdiction over the case of assessee as the Director of the assessee has informed the ITO Ward-2(2), through telephone which is recorded by ITO, Ward-2(2). The Director of the company informed the AO that he is filing his return at Delhi and has already shifted his office at New Delhi and got its address changed in his PAN data wise and the same was also communicated to the assessee by the Income Tax PAN Services Unit vide its letter dated 26.03.2014 for change of address at New Delhi. Assessee has filed proves of the same before the Assessing Officer. In spite of the same, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment which is contrary to the law and facts on file and deserves to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) who issued the notice. 3. Validity of the assessment order passed under Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 148: The primary issue was whether the notice issued under Section 148 by the ITO, Ward 2(2), Jaipur, was valid. The assessee argued that the notice was invalid as it was issued by an officer who did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Tribunal referred to multiple precedents, including *Mrs. Uma Loomba vs CIT (2000) 241 ITR 152 (Del)* and *CIT Vs. Lalit Kumar Bardia, ITA 127/2006 (Bombay HC)*, which established that jurisdictional errors render notices invalid. The Tribunal concluded that the notice issued by the ITO, Ward 2(2), Jaipur, was indeed invalid as the officer did not have jurisdiction over the assessee at the time of issuance. 2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer: The Tribunal examined whether the ITO, Ward 2(2), Jaipur, had jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148. It was established that the assessee had shifted its registered office from Jaipur to New Delhi, which was approved by the Company Law Board and updated in the PAN database. The Tribunal noted that the ITO, Ward 2(2), Jaipur, was informed about this change and had even requested the transfer of the case to Delhi. Citing cases like *CIT vs. Anjali Dua (2008) 219 CIT 183 (Del)* and *Sh. Subhash Chand Ajmera vs. ITO, ITA No. 61/Jp/2017*, the Tribunal held that the ITO, Ward 2(2), Jaipur, lacked jurisdiction, making the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid. 3. Validity of the Assessment Order under Section 147/143(3): The Tribunal assessed whether the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward 2(2), Delhi, based on the notice issued by the ITO, Ward 2(2), Jaipur, was valid. The Tribunal referred to *Pr. CIT vs. Mohammad Rizwan ITA 100 of 2015 (All-HC)* and *ITO vs. Indus Valley Investment and Finance Limited, ITA 4239/Del/2011*, which stated that an AO must issue a fresh notice under Section 148 after acquiring jurisdiction. Since the ITO, Ward 2(2), Delhi, did not issue a fresh notice or record his own reasons for reopening the assessment, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was void ab initio. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), which quashed the assessment order on the grounds that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer without jurisdiction and no fresh notice was issued by the jurisdictional AO. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed, affirming that the assessment was invalid due to jurisdictional errors and procedural lapses.
|
