TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 127 of the Act. It is settled principle of law that when the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by a non jurisdictional AO, the ITO Bareli in this case, reassessment by the jurisdictional AO is bad in law and is liable to be quashed, more particularly when assessment of the assessee has admittedly not been transferred to Bareli under section 127 of the Act. So the assessment framed by the ACIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai on the basis of initiation of reopening under section 147/148 of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law for lack of jurisdiction being void ab-initio. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.7225/M/2018 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) - - - Dated:- 25-3-2022 - SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL ME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence the notice u/s 148 of the Act is invalid. 3. Ground No. 3 - Re: Arbitrary additions of ₹ 2,04,08,000/- is invalid: Without prejudice and in the alternative, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the arbitrary addition of ₹ 2,04,08,000 being sale proceeds of properties allegedly belonging to the appellant-assessee without providing proper details and without affording opportunity to explain the same. 4. Ground No.42 - Re: Denial of Exemptions u/s 11 of the Act: Without prejudice, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in denying the claim for exemption/deduction as per sec 11(1 A) of the Act even though the appellant has made sufficient investment in acquiring another capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. Undisputedly, original assessment against the assessee for the year under consideration was framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 20.11.2009. It is also not in dispute that jurisdictional AO in this case is ACIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai. It is also not in dispute that reopening in this case was initiated by way of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act by recording reasons by Income Tax Officer-(1) (for short ITO ), Bareli, Uttar Pradesh. It is also not dispute that assessment in this case under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, which is challenged before the Bench, has been framed by ACIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai. It is also not dispute that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mann.com 268 (Lucknow-Trib.), Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT 76 taxmann.com 126 (Mumbai-Trib.) and Harvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67n taxmann.com 109 (Delhi- Trib.) 9. However, on the other hand, to repel the arguments addressed by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue contended that when the assessee s PAN was lying with ITO, Bareli, ITO, Bareli has rightly issued the notice under section 142(1) of the Act and the assessment framed in this case is valid and relied upon the order passed by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). 10. Before proceeding further, we would like to extract for ready perusal reasons recorded for the purpose of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Act by ITO-1, Bareli, UP are as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
