9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the income returned of Rs. 1,13,710/- by taking recourse to the provisions of section 147/148 of the IT Act and inter alia making wholly unwarranted addition of Rs. 9,13,710/- on account of unexplained and bogus gift. 2. That the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act dated 16/03/2009 is bad in law and without jurisdiction in as much as there was no material or evidence on record to form a reason to believe that any income of the assessee, for the concerned assessment year has escaped assessment. The information received from DIT (Inv.)-I, New Delhi, was wholly insufficient and could not be cogent material to assme a valid jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of IT Act. Learned CIT(A) turned down the submission of the assessee without looking in to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn filed u/s 139 may be treated as return in response to section 148 of the Act. From the assessment order, it was clear that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the ITO Ward-26(4), New Delhi. Based on the reply filed by the ld. Representative the case was transferred to ITO Ward-26(3) New Delhi who had valid jurisdiction over the appellant. The appellant has not complied with the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the AO was constrained to complete assessment ex parte by bringing to tax the said amount of Rs. 8 lac. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi, who vide order dated 1st March 2012 in Appeal No.95/11-12 had dismissed the appeal. It was contended before the ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant, at the time of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In such circumstances, it was held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All.) that the notice issued by an Officer who had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. The notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4) is non est in the eyes of law since he had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant either territorial as notified under Section 124 of the Act or by transferring the case under the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. Now, the question is whether the action of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(3) New Delhi was valid in law in concluding the assessment procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
