Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (4) TMI 692

m to the AO at Ghaziabad cannot confer jurisdiction on the AO at Ghaziabad, when the assessee has always been and remains assessed at Agra. - The fact that the assessee remained posted as Chief Engineer, Ghaziabad and had been residing in Ghaziabad, again, cannot confer jurisdiction on the AO at Ghaziabad to issue notice under sections 147/148 of the IT Act, when undisputedly and admittedly, the assessee has never been assessed at Ghaziabad and he has always been and continues to be assessed at Agra. - Apropos the observation that the AO at Ghaziabad would have jurisdiction over the matter under section 124(1) of the Act, this observation gets nullified by the very next observation, i.e., the assessment has been completed by the AO in Agra. The grievance of the assessee in this regard is found justified and it is accepted as such - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A Nos. 224 & 225/Agra/2016 - Dated:- 19-3-2018 - SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri S. N. Bansal, Advocate. For The Respondent : Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. ORDER PER, A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are assessee s appeals for Assessment Yea .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

and as such the addition of Rs. Eight Lacs, is wrong, improper, unjustified, illegal and based on mere surmises and suppositions which do not flow from the facts of the case, weight of evidence on record and law on the subject. The evidence adduced by the appellant for not being added the said addition has not been considered properly and in the right perceptive. The written submission filed before the authorities below has riot been considered properly. The authorities below have brushed aside the evidence brought on record for which no proper reasons have at all been given. 9. Because addition of ₹ 4124/- (not 281030/- noted in appellate order) was received for which there is no evidence on record against the appellant. 10. Because the charge of interest U/S 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D is wrong and illegal. 3. As per Ground No.2, the Income Tax officer 2(3) Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. He had also no authority/jurisdiction to record the reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act, and also to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act, as the assessee never filed his returns of i .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Ghaziabad and has been residing at C-7, Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad. This address is also mentioned in the copy of agreement duly notarized, based on which notices were sent to him. In the statement recorded assessee has himself stated on oath that he resides on this address in Ghaziabad. Hence the issue of notices for reopening of the case by 1TO Ghaziabad is not without jurisdiction. As per section 124(1)(b), AO is vested over jurisdiction in respect of any person who is residing within the area of his jurisdiction. Since the assessee is a government servant posted in Ghaziabad and residing there, ITO Ghaziabad would have jurisdiction over his case irrespective of the fact that he has filed his Income Tax Return in Agra. In any case since assessment has been completed by AO in Agra, there is no case for questioning the jurisdiction by the assessee. This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the assessee s above stand, as taken before the ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. He has also referred to section 120(3) of the IT Act. It is submitted that the AO at Ghaziabad had territorial jur .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ed at Agra since very beginning till previous financial year 2016-17. The appellant served at different places of UP and his family was residing at permanent address of 27 MIG of transport nagar, housing scheme, Agra. The assessee SPS Raghav is an old and regular income tax assessee at Agra since the AY 1976-77 to FY 2016-17. 8. Thus, evidently, the ITO-2(3) Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings. The AO s records were summoned by this Bench on 23.10.2017. However, despite opportunities granted on 14.11.2017, 11.12.2017 and 18.1.2018, the same have not been produced. 9. The Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v/s. Kurban Hussian , 82 ITR 821 (SC), has held that it is well settled law that the ITO s jurisdiction in reopening an assessment in section 34/147 depends upon the issuance of the valid notice. If the notice issued is invalid for any reason, the entire proceedings would become void for want of jurisdiction. The said judgment is on page 30-32 of the paper book. The ITAT Allahabad Bench in the case of ITO v/s. Smt Shashi Agarwal , 7 MTC 494, has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurban Hussain (supra). Then, the Tr .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

r, is of no detriment or impediment to the admitted position that since the assessee has, all through, been assessed at Agra, the ITO at Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction over his assessment. 13. As for the observations made by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue, the mere factum of the agreement found by the DDIT (Inv.), Ghaziabad having been forwarded by him to the AO at Ghaziabad cannot confer jurisdiction on the AO at Ghaziabad, when the assessee has always been and remains assessed at Agra. 14. Further, the fact that the assessee remained posted as Chief Engineer, Ghaziabad and had been residing in Ghaziabad, again, cannot confer jurisdiction on the AO at Ghaziabad to issue notice under sections 147/148 of the IT Act, when undisputedly and admittedly, the assessee has never been assessed at Ghaziabad and he has always been and continues to be assessed at Agra. 15. Apropos the observation that the AO at Ghaziabad would have jurisdiction over the matter under section 124(1) of the Act, this observation gets nullified by the very next observation, i.e., the assessment has been completed by the AO in Agra. 16. In view of the above, the grievance of the assessee in this regard is found justif .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||