TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uya, continued to proceed with the re-assessment and issued notices u/s 148 of the Act. The fact that the assessee was an NRI was very much on the record. ITO Dasuya had no jurisdiction to initiate reopening of the assessment by way of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, thereafter he transferred the case to ADIT (International Taxation) fully convinced that he himself had no jurisdiction to make assessment in the case of the assessee. Admittedly, no notice u/s 148 of the Act by the DCIT (International Taxation), Chandigarh to the assessee was issued. Since the ITO, Dasuya had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, hence, any notice issued by him has no legal validity. So far as the DCIT (International Taxation), Chandigarh is concerned, he admittedly did not issue any notice u/s 148 to the assessee, therefore, the very reopening of the assessment without issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act by the Assessing officer of the competent jurisdiction, is bad in law. Argument of the Ld. DR that the ITO, Dasuya had transferred the case to DCIT (International Taxation ), Chandigarh and, hence, there was no requirement of issuing of fresh notice u/s 148 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case and transferred the file to the Assessing Officer, International Taxation, Chandigarh, having the proper jurisdiction and, as such, the finding of the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer at Dasuya has the areawise jurisdiction and, therefore, he had the jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s 148, is totally devoid of any valid reasoning. 4. That the finding of CIT(A) that the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 by the ITO, Dasuya are in order, is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that at one given point of time only one Assessing Officer could have the jurisdiction and failed to follow the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Vs CIT as reported in 89 Taxmann 0536. 6. That the CIT(A), while giving the above finding have failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer, DCIT, International Taxation, Chandigarh could not rebut any of the contention of the assessee with regard to the valid jurisdiction of the ITO, Dasuya. 7. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the various documentary evidences, as furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply to the said letter, the assessee stated that his reply dated 9.2.2016 to be considered in this respect whereby he had given the necessary details. Thereafter, the ITO Dasuya issued a notice dated 30.3.2016 stating that he had reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and thereby he proposed to reopen / re-assess the income of the assessee u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed the reply through his counsel i.e. Advocate Shri Surinder Singh to the aforesaid notice on 27.4.2016 stating that he was an NRI person living in USA for the last 30 years and that he did not have any taxable income in India. That he was having 25 acres of agricultural land and accordingly, income therefrom was exempt from taxation. Thereafter, the ITO Dasuya issued notice dated 2.5.2016 u/s 142(1) of the Act asking the assessee to file the return of income along with documents. Another letter dated 18.5.2016 was issued by the ITO, Dasuya requesting Shri Surinder Singh Advocate, authorized by the assessee to furnish documentary evidence regarding the claim of the assessee that he was an NRI and permanently residing in USA for the last 30 years. Shri Surinder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer and submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) did not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee and accordingly dismissed the same. The assessee, thus, has come in appeal before us. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. The main and foremost grievance of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this case is regarding the validity of re-assessment order framed by the DCIT (International Taxation) on the ground of non-issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act by DCIT(International Taxation). It has submitted that the assessment has been framed by the DCIT (International Taxation) on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction of the ITO, Dasuya instead of himself forming the belief regarding the escapement of income of the assessee. As per the narration of events as discussed above, firstly, in the year 2012, the queries were raised by the ITO Dasuya regarding the aforesaid deposit of amount of ₹ 30.68 lacs in the bank account of the assessee, however, thereafter the ITO Dasuya remained silent for about four years. Thereafter, the ITO Hoshiarpur issued queries vide letter dated 18.2.2016 about the same bank transactions. The assessee vide letter dated 09.02.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, any notice issued by him has no legal validity. So far as the DCIT (International Taxation), Chandigarh is concerned, he admittedly did not issue any notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee, therefore, the very reopening of the assessment without issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act by the Assessing officer of the competent jurisdiction, is bad in law and the consequential assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and the same is accordingly liable to be quashed. 12. So far as the argument of the Ld. DR that the ITO, Dasuya had transferred the case to DCIT (International Taxation ), Chandigarh and, hence, there was no requirement of issuing of fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act as per the provisions of section 127 (4) of the Act is concerned, we do not find any force in the above contention of the Ld. DR. Firstly, the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the ITO, Dasuya were without jurisdiction and the same were void abinitio, hence, any transfer of such void proceedings to the Assessing officer of competent jurisdiction did not validate his action and the proceedings. Even otherwise, as per the provisions of section 127 of the Act, ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
