TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment record was transferred to the ITO Ward 11(4). But even at that point of time, the ITO Ward 11(4) did not choose to record the reasons for reopening or issue notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee on her correct address. He chose to proceed from the stage at which ITO Ward 5(3), had transferred the files to him. Therefore, it is clearly without any jurisdiction. AO gets jurisdiction to reopen the assessment only after he records the reasons for reopening and thereafter, issues notice u/s 148 within the prescribed time and only on fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein. None of these conditions have been fulfilled by the AO. No hesitation in holding that the re-assessment proceedings were not initiated validly and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act dated 31.03.2016. The notice which was sent by registered post was sent to the address given in the Sale Deed but the same was returned back saying no such person with this address residing . The Assessing Officer, therefore, served notice to the assessee by affixture on 25.05.2016 on the address given by the Inspector of Income Tax. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a letter dated 13.5.2016 stating as under: 5. Your above referred letter was served on me on 06.12.2016. Though the letter was served on me at my Residence at 69, Prestige Park, Gundala Pochampally, Medchal but my address mentioned in the letter is 5-8- 5618, Gadwal compound, Nampally, Hyderabad which is incorrect. In the letter you have req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee s contention is that she has filed her return of income to the ITO Ward 11(3), whereas the Officer who has initiated 148 proceedings was ITO Ward 5(3) and therefore, the notice u/s 148 is not valid. He submitted that though the final assessment order was passed by the ITO Ward 11(4), he is not the Officer who has recorded the reasons for reopening. Thus, according to him, since the reasons were not recorded by the ITO having jurisdiction over the assessee, the re-assessment is not valid. The CIT (A) however, held that the original residence of the assessee was at a place whose territorial jurisdiction was vested with ITO Ward 5(3) who issued notice u/s 148 and the original residence had been sold by the assessee and thereafter, the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was duly intimated to Department and further the this address was available with ITO ward 5(3) and he served letters/notices at this address. 4) That the reassessment proceedings passed are bad in law as Notice u/s 148 was not served and learned CIT(Appeals) despite admitting this fact erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings. 5) That without prejudice to above Grounds of Appeal, the alleged service of Notice u/s 148 by affixture is invalid as the affixture was not done on Appellant's address and further none of the circumstances specified under Rule 17 of Order V of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which warrant service by affixture were existing and this renders the alleged service by affixture invalid. 6) That th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he submissions made before the authorities below submitted that the property was sold on 19.02.2009 whereas the assessee has filed her return of income on 17.8.2009 before the ITO Ward 11(4) giving the correct address in the return of income. Therefore, according to him, the assessee s jurisdiction lies with the ITO Ward 11(4) only. He submitted that the ITO Ward 5(3), had initiated the 148 proceedings by sending a notice u/s 148 on 31.3.2016 i.e. after nearly 7 years of the assessee transferring the property and also filing her return of income. He submitted that the property which was sold is the address to which the notice u/s 148 was sent by registered post and was later served by affixture. He submitted that the assessee has filed a le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.K. Loomba and others vs. CIT reported in (2000) 241 ITR 152 (Del) dated Nov.30, 1998. e) ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Resham Petrotech Ltd reported in (2012) 136 ITD 185 (ITAT Ahm) dated 10.02.2012 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the notice u/s 148 was validly served on the assessee. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the findings of the AO and the CIT (A). 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that undisputedly, the re-assessment proceedings were initiated by the ITO Ward 5(3), while the assessment was completed by ITO Ward 11(4). It is also undisputed fact that the ITO Ward 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
