9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued for asst. yr. 1998-99 on 30th March, 2005 by ITO, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad. In response to the notice it was submitted by the assessee that he had filed return with the Dy. CIT, Circle 21(2), Delhi and was being regularly assessed by him. However, it was stated that return filed originally may be treated as a return filed in response to notice under s. 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the file was transferred by ITO, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad, to the Dy. CIT, Circle 40(1), New Delhi. The Dy. CIT, Circle 40(1), New Delhi, passed assessment order on 31st March, 2006. 3. The assessee challenged the assessment on the grounds of jurisdiction before the learned CIT(A). It was stated that the assessee filed return of income for asst. yr. 1998-99 decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was granted a refund of Rs. 95,686. Therefore, there was no concealment of income. Since the assessee had already filed return of income admitting income earned from compensation, reopening of assessment was done contrary to the facts as mentioned in the reasons recorded. This contention of the assessee was, however, rejected by the learned CIT on the ground that the AO was in possession of information on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. He accordingly upheld the reopening of the assessment. 4.1 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee, Shri Salil Kapoor, assailed the reopening of assessment on the grounds of assumption of jurisdiction under s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal Representative submitted that the proposal of the AO was routed through the office of the Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT. Without routing the file through the Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT and recording of his satisfaction the learned CIT could not have recorded his satisfaction. Therefore, the requirements of s. 151(2) are satisfied. It was also submitted that the jurisdiction of the AO cannot be challenged by the assessee as per s. 120(2) and s. 120(3) of the Act. The jurisdictional issue cannot defeat the provisions of s. 4, the charging section. She placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Hindustan Transport Co. vs. IAC (1991) 189 ITR 326 (All); (2) Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 172 CTR (Cal) 499 : (2001) 252 ITR 550 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcle 21 (2), New Delhi, might be treated as a return in response to notice under s. 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the counsel of the assessee filed vide letter dt. 29th Sept., 2005 enclosing the zerox copies of returns for asst. yr. 1998-99 to asst. yr. 2005-06, in support of his contention that the assessee was assessed to tax in Delhi. The ITO, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad vide his letter dt. 6th Dec., 2005 transferred the case records to the ITO, Ward 40(1), Connaught Circus, New Delhi, for further action at his end. Thereafter, the present AO issued notice for the first time on 21st Dec., 2005 to the assessee requiring him to file information/details for completion of the assessment. He did not issue any fresh notice under s. 148 of the Act. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the AO within the meaning of s. 120. Sec. 120 of the Act confers jurisdiction on IT authorities as per the procedure prescribed therein. Sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 120 do not automatically confer jurisdiction on territorial basis in respect of person already assessed to tax under the jurisdiction of other Chief CIT. The assessee was assessed in the charge of Chief CIT, Delhi. No orders were passed by the CBDT empowering the AO or the learned CIT to exercise jurisdiction over the assessee. The assessee has intimated the AO that he was assessed to tax with Dy. CIT Circle 21 (2), New Delhi. Therefore, this contention of the Revenue does not have any merits. 8. The learned senior Departmental Represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad. Another case relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative is of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of B.R. Industries Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors. In this case the order passed by the learned CIT, Delhi-I, assigning the jurisdiction was challenged by way of writ petition. The ratio of this decision is also not applicable as no jurisdiction was assigned to ITO, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad. The learned Departmental Representative also contended that the defect in the notice can be ignored under s. 292B of the Act. Sec. 292B of the IT Act, 1961 says that no return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings, etc. shall be invalid, or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake or defect or omission in suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
