9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cised jurisdiction in respect of the residential address furnished by the assessee and who thereafter completed the assessment. (c) The assessee apparently filed a forged photocopy of the s. 148 notice containing assessee's residential address, claiming that the AO [ITO, Ward 25(4)] issued the said notice without jurisdiction whereas in fact no notice under s.148 was issued to the assessee at his residential address as per the case records." The issue raised in the aforesaid grounds of appeal is as to whether the AO, who had issued notice under s. 147 of the Act had any jurisdiction over the assessee to issue notice under s. 148 of the Act and as to whether the assessment completed by the AO, Ward 33(2), New Delhi was valid in the eyes of law. A notice under s. 148 was issued by the ITO, Ward 25(4), who initiated proceedings under s. 147 of the Act on the basis of information received by him from Dy. Director of IT (Inv.), Faridabad that the assessee had introduced the funds amounting to Rs. 4,75,000 through the accommodation entry in the form of agricultural income with the help of Jai Trading Co. in his bank account No. 25/4202, SBI, Rohtak Road, Delhi, by using the address 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the assessee did not comply with the requirement of the same". In this connection, it is submitted that on 29th Aug., 2002, the assessee along with G.S. Grover, chartered accountant attended the proceedings of the learned ITO where notice under s. 142(1), dt. 29th Aug., 2002 was served on the assessee for 9th Sept., 2002. This can be verified from the order sheet of the learned ITO. On 9th Sept., 2002, the learned ITO was not in his room from 3 pm to 4.30 pm as he had gone to Courts, so reply dt. 9th Sept., 2002, was filed in his office. Photostat copy of the notice under s. 142(1) dt. 29th Aug., 2002, and reply of the assessee dt. 9th Sept., 2002 are placed as Annexs. C and D respectively. Your Honour will observe from the reply that since no proceedings were pending in his office and as such information asked is uncalled for. The learned ITO, Ward 25(4), has transferred the file to the learned ITO, Ward 33(2); it confirms that he had no jurisdiction over the case and as such reopening was illegal and bad in law. Also the case transferred without any further order under s. 127. It has been wrongly stated by the learned ITO at para 4 of his order that challenge of territorial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case by the learned ITO, Ward 25(4) and approved by worthy CIT-IX as obtained from the learned ITO are placed as per Annex. I to K. From the perusal of the Annex. K, Your Honour will observe that, the learned ITO, Ward 25(4) had no IT return and thus he had no jurisdiction over the case. From the perusal of Annex. K, Your Honour will observe that the learned ITO, Ward 25(4) had no IT return and thus he had no jurisdiction over the case. From the perusal of Annex. J where the worthy CIT-IX has given the approval, Your Honour will observe that at serial No. 7, it is clear whether provisions of s. 147(b) or both are applicable and at serial No. 11 there are no reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment. Also, there is no order of CIT about his satisfaction on reopening. The worthy CIT has given the approval in a mechanical fashion i.e. without application of mind. From the perusal of Annex. I, Your Honour will observe that ITO sent the proposal for reopening of the case under s. 147(a) but not s. 147(b) as stated by him in Annex. J. In view of the above submission, the reopening of the case is illegal, arbitrary, without any jurisdiction, without any application o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rving and holding as under : "9. It has been further stated that the ITO has himself stated that prior to filing of return at Karol Bagh address, the appellant was assessed at the address of 187/107 Peera Garhi in Ward 24(1), New Delhi, which was also the territorial jurisdiction before the restructuring of the Department and return for 1995-96 filed on 31st Oct., 1995 vide receipt No. 4365 and revised returns of asst. yr. 1994-95, dt. 31st Sep., 1995 and 1996-97 were filed with ITO, Ward 24(1), New Delhi. They also filed copies of acknowledgements with the returns and it has been argued that only the AO can issue notice under s. 147/148 and the appellant's jurisdiction with Asstt. CIT, Circle-24(3) from where the case had been sent to Asstt. CIT, Circle 24(1), New Delhi. So, the AO, Ward 25(4) issuing notice under s. 148 had no jurisdiction. Hence the AO issuing notice under s. 147 i.e., 25(4) had no jurisdiction over the case. The ITO, in his remand report has also confirmed that the notice was issued by ITO, Ward 25(4) and the assessee was never assessed there. Even though ITO, Ward 24(1) has all the territorial jurisdiction over the 487/107, Peera Garhi, however, since the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such the notice issued by him cannot said to be without jurisdiction. He further submitted that when the assessee submitted his address of Karol Bagh, the ITO, Ward 25 (4) transferred the assessment record to the ITO, Ward 33(2), who had territorial jurisdiction over the address furnished by the assessee. He, therefore, contended that the CIT(A) was unjustified in cancelling the assessment made under s. 147 of the Act by the ITO, Ward 33(2), New Delhi. 11. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, reiterated the contentions and submissions that were made before the CIT(A). The assessee's contentions before the CIT(A) have already been reproduced above and, therefore, we feel no need to reproduce the same again here. The Authorised Representative of the assessee, Ms. Rano Jain, relied upon the following decisions : CIT vs. Smt. Anjali Dua (2008) 11 DTR (Del) 93; The decision of Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', Delhi, in the case of Ranjeet Singh vs. Asstt. CIT [reported at (2008) 10 DTR (Del)(Trib) 181-Ed.] We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is not in dispute that the notice under s. 147 was issued by the ITO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for the asst. yr. 1995-96. The ITO, Ward 24(1) then passed an order under s. 154 on 9th May, 2003 and reduced the interest under s. 234A to Rs. 17,040. It is thus clear that the ITO, Ward 24(1) exercised jurisdiction over the assessee on 9th May, 2003 when he passed the order under s. 154 on an application filed by the assessee under s. 154 on 5th May, 2003 with reference to the return of income for the asst. yr. 1995-96. The present notice has been issued under s. 147 by the ITO, Ward 25(4) on 28th March, 2002, when the jurisdiction over the assessee's case was with ITO, Ward 24(1), New Delhi. Thus, from this aspect of the matter also, the notice under s. 147 issued by ITO, Ward 25(4) was without jurisdiction. Moreover, the ITO, Ward 33(2) who passed the present assessment order without issuing any fresh notice under s. 148 of the Act cannot be said to have a valid jurisdiction over the assessee unless and until the case has been transferred to him from ITO, Ward 25(4), by an order passed under s. 127 of the Act by any competent authority. In the present case, the ITO, Ward 33(2) had exercised the jurisdiction merely on the basis of intimation given by the ITO, Ward 25(4), and m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
