TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... competent authority has not passed any order u/s. 127(2) of the Act for transferring the case from ITO Phagwara to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle Chandigarh. Since, the coordinate Bench has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Sh. Manjit Singh vs. DCIT International Taxation [ 2020 (9) TMI 84 - ITAT CHANDIGARH ] and since the facts and issues involved in the present case are identical to the facts of the of the present case, we find merit in the legal issues raised by the assessee in its appeal. Hence,we allow the legal grounds raised by the appellant/assessee in the present case and quash the order passed by the Ld. DCIT (International Taxation). - Decided in favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee upheld the action of the AO and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Against the said findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds: 1. That when the AO passing the impugned order, had neither recorded reasons u/s. 142(2), nor issued notice u/s. 148, the impugned order ought to have been held as void ah initio by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. That there being no order passed u/s. 127(2) by the competent authority, transferring the case from ITO Phagwara, (who otherwise had unlawfully usurped jurisdiction in this case), to DCIT (Intl. Taxation), the letter AO coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that since the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional Bench of the Tribunal, the same deserves dismissal. The Ld. Counsel invited our attention to facts of the case and the circumstances under which the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the order in the above referred case to show that in the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in the similar set of facts and circumstances. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not deny the facts stated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The Ld. DR further admitted that the legal issues raised in this case is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Sh. Manjit Singh vs. DCIT I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vents 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 09.02.2016 informed the ITO Hoshiarpur that he was a non-resident Indian, further necessary details like copies of PAN card, passport, Permanent Resident Card etc. were attached with the said letter. However, after considering the PAN details of the assessee, ITO, Hoshiarpur transferred the case to ITO, Dasuya. The ITO, Hoshiarpur did not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was an NRI was very much on the record. Under the circumstances, the 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. 7. 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 of the Act to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued by the ITO Phagwara after recording reasons for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, whereas the assessment order u/s. 144 read with section 147 was passed by the DCIT (international Taxation), Circle Chandigarh. Further, the competent authority has not passed any order u/s. 127(2) of the Act for transferring the case from ITO Phagwara to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle Chandigarh. Since, the coordinate Bench has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Sh. Manjit Singh vs. DCIT International Taxation (supra) and since the facts and issues involved in the present case are identical to the facts of the of the present case, we find merit in the legal issues r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
