TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case for assessee to have any grievance in this case as assessee was issued notice u/s. 148 at an address given to the bank by the assessee himself. Thus it can not be said that assessee’s case was reopened and assessed without assuming proper jurisdiction - As assessee never challenged the address at New Delhi in these circumstances CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment, on the ground that proper jurisdiction was not obtained by the AO. Assessment in this case cannot be said to have been framed without assuming proper jurisdiction as the notice was very much issued at the address given by the assessee himself in the bank account - matter is being remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the merits of the case and pass a speaking order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases Director of Income Tax, New Delhi conducted large scale investigations to unearth huge racket involving accommodation entry providers. Such entry providers were found to be involved in giving accommodation entries in the form of bogus gifts/ loans / share application money/ capital gain etc. The assessee was also alleged to have taken accommodation entries in a bank at Delhi. In view of the information received, the assessment of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 26.3.2010 by ITO, Ward 25(3), New Delhi. Later on, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued by ITO, Ward 25(3), New Delhi on 20.7.2010. In response to this notice, the counsel of the assessee appeared before ITO, Ward 25(3), New Delhi and filed copies of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 142(1) was issued by ITO, Ward 25(3), New Delhi on 20.7.2010. In response to this notice, the counsel of the assessee appeared before ITO, Ward 25(3), New Delhi and filed copies of acknowledgements of return for the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2010-11 with the request to transfer the case to ITO, Ward-I, Rohtak. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was transferred to ITO-I, Rohtak on 13.8.2010. This case was further transferred to ACIT, Rohtak as the assessee had filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 with the ACIT, Rohtak. 4.2 Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) noted that ACIT, Rohtak started proceedings for issuance of notice u/s. 142(1) dated 26.8.2010. No notice u/s. 148 was issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer at Rohtak on the request of the assessee. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee never challenged the address at New Delhi. In these circumstances, she claimed that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in quashing the assessment, on the ground that proper jurisdiction was not obtained by the Assessing Officer. 6.1 On the other hand, ld. Counsel of the assessee supported the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). He referred to the several case laws as under:- i) ITO vs. Naseem Farms Ltd., ITAT, Delhi 134 TTJ 472. ii) C.I.T. vs. Cebon India Ltd., Punjab Haryana High Court, 229 CTR 188. iii) C.I.T. vs. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, I.T.A. No. 286 of 2011, Allahabad High Court. iv) C.I.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... address of Delhi and on the same address the notice u/s. 148 was issued followed by notice u/s. 142(1). In response to that notice assessee appeared before the ITO, Ward 25(3), New Delhi and requested that assessee s case is being assessed with ITO, Ward-I, Rohtak and requested to transfer the records to ITO, Rohtak from New Delhi. Thus, we find that there is no case for assessee to have any grievance in this case as assessee was issued notice u/s. 148 at an address given to the bank by the assessee himself. From the same address, in response to the notices assessee responded and submitted that he/she is being assessed at Rohtak and requested that the records may be transferred. In our considered opinion in these circumstances, it can not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Aggarwal cited above, the Hon ble Allahabad High Court has adjudicated on the facts that the tribunal has returned the findings that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was admittedly not issued in this case. 7.4 In other cases laws cited above by the ld. Counsel of the assessee there was finding that notice u/s. 143(2) was not served. 8. To recapitulate the facts of these cases is different from the above case laws. In the present case, the ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi was having jurisdiction over the assessee in as much as address of the assessee in the bank account was given of Delhi. The notice u/s. 148 was issued on this address and notice u/s. 142(1) was also served upon on the same address. In these circumstances, on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
