TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 147 of the Act, without having jurisdiction over the assessee; such a notice is void ab initio, and an assessment order passed in consequence thereof is non est, devoid of any legal force. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No:- 6553/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2019 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri S.D.Kapila, Adv. Sh.R.R.Maurya, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Janardan Das, Sr.DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM [A]. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.10.2015 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-17, New Delhi [in short Ld.CIT(A) ] pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(Appeal) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer had valid jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the proceedings u/s 147 and the consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y issued by an officer who is competed to do so. Thus, the notice u/s 148 has been issued by an assessing officer who is competed to do so. Thus, the notice u/s 148 has been issued by an assessing officer who is competent to do so. Accordingly, there is no merit in the objections so raised and the same are hereby dismissed. You are directed to file your return of income immediately in terms to provisions of section 148 of the Income tax Act. [B.1]. The assessee petitioned vide letter dated 20.08.2014 of Joint Commissioner of Income tax, Range-24, New Delhi requesting for determining the jurisdiction of the assessee. The relevant portion of the aforesaid petition is reproduced hereunder:- We file this letter before your goodself for the determination of the lawful jurisdiction of the abovementioned assessee and for identification of the assessing officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. FACTS: 1. Mr. Inder Mohan Singh Khurana, an assessee having income from business, has been regularly running his business operations from the premises 4/5917, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over the assessee to Ward 24(3) as such section has limited application in cases where the income tax officer and the assessee are completely localized in a particular area and the income is also earned in such area and nowhere else. This has been ruled by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Kanjimal Sons Vs,. CIT (138 ITR 039-Del). On the basis of the above it is contended that the Ld. ITO, Ward 24(3) had no jurisdiction over the assessee and thus was not his 'assessing officer' who had authority to issue a notice U/s 143 upon him. Thus, as the notice is without authority and lacked proper sanction, the same is invalid and non est. Therefore it is requested that the assessment proceedings U/s 148 initiated upon the assessee vide such notice be cancelled and ought to be dropped. [B.2]. In the meantime, on 19.08.2014 itself, ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi suo moto transferred the assessment record to ACIT, Circle- 33(1), New Delhi. Later, on 30.10.2014, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued by ACIT, Range-51(1), New Delhi in connection with the proceedings u/ s 147 of the Act initiated through the aforesaid notice u/s 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issuing notice u/s 148 dated 31.3.2014. [B.3]. Eventually, assessment order was passed by ITO, Ward-51(2), New Delhi wherein an addition of ₹ 66,50,000/- was made on account of unexplained loan deemed as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A). In the appeal filed by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee, inter alia, took grounds against exercise of jurisdiction u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act, assumed by ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi vide aforesaid notice issued on 31.03.2014 u/s 148 of the Act. These grounds were rejected by Ld.CIT(A) vide para 4.1 of his appellate order dated 20.10.2016. The relevant portion of the order of Ld.CIT(A) is reproduced for ease of reference:- 4.1. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submission of the appellant but I do not find any force in the argument of appellant. The fact remains that as per territorial jurisdiction over the Sainik Farm area where the appellant was residing fails under the jurisdiction of ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi, therefore, as per sec.l24(l)(b) of the IT Act, the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.3.2004 issued by AO Ward 24(3) New Delhi 4. Assessee letter dated 15.04.2014 addressed to the AO Ward 24(3) for providing the copy of reason recorded 5. Assessee filed 'Objections dt. 28.04.2014 with AO ward 24(3) on jurisdiction along with return for last three year 6. Assessee letter dated 01.05.2014 before the AO along with copy of letter dated 28.04.2014 challenging of jurisdiction of AO ward 24(3). 7. Notice u/s 142(1) dated01.05.2014 issued by AO Ward 24(3) 8. Assessee letter dated 13.05.2014 before AO Ward 24(3) annexing copy of letter dated 28.04.2014 challenging jurisdiction (Sr. No. 5) 9. Assessing Officer Ward 24(3) Order dated 01.08.2014 rejecting objection. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. Sardar Baldev Sing v. CIT 40 ITR 605(S.C) 11. Section 64 of 1922Act Sr. No. Particulars 1. Assessment Order for A.Y. 2001-02 2. Assessment Order for A.Y. 2006-07 3 Letter dt. 28.06.2016 filed with CIT(A), assessee wiling to produce Mr. Solo for examination. 4. Notification regarding New Jurisdiction of Income- tax in Delhi w.e.f. 15.11.2014. 5. Rohtak Hissar District Electricity Supply Co. v. CIT 128 ITR 52(Del)[HCl [C.1]. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the jurisdiction over the assessee vested in ITO, Ward-33(4), New Delhi at the time when [on 31.03.2014] the aforesaid ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi issued the aforesaid notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a notice to an assessee u/s 148 of the Act for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, without having jurisdiction over the assessee; such a notice is void ab initio, and an assessment order passed in consequence thereof is non est, devoid of any legal force. For these views, we take support from the order of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dushyant Kumar Jain vs DCIT [2016] 66 taxmann.com 126 [Delhi] in which the Hon ble High Court held as under:- 16. .It is only the AO who has issued the original assessment order dated 13th April 2009 for AY 2007-08 under section 143(3) of the Act who is empowered to exercise powers under section 147/148 to re-open the assessment. This is because he alone would be in a position to form reasons to believe that some income of that particular AY has escaped assessment [D.1]. We also take support from the following precedents in support of our aforesaid view:- [i] Dr.Mrs. K.B.Kumar vs ITO [2011] 12 taxmann.com 318 (Delhi) 47 SOT 192; [ii] ITO vs Krishan Kumar Gupta [2008] 16 DTR 1 (Delhi-Trib.); [iii] Ranjeet Singh vs Asstt. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
