TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 806 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ], Shiv Ratan Soni and Baldev Singh Giani [ 2000 (9) TMI 42 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] Requirement of recording of reasons to believe enshrined u/s. 148(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was mandatory on the part of the Assessing Officer. Observing, that the assessment record did not contain reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, thus the notice of reassessment proceedings had to be treated as nullity. Thus we are of the considered view, that as the Assessing Officer prior to issuance of Notice u/s.148 had failed to record reasons to believe , therefore, he had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed the impugned assessment u/s.148/143(3) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 273/RPR/2016 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2022 - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri Jamlappa D Battull, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri R.B. Doshi, AR For the Revenue : Shri G.N Singh, DR ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur, dated 01.03.2016, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 148 r.w.s. 143(3) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed u/s.148/143(3) of the Act, dated 30.04.2014, wherein the AO adopting the segment rate/stamp value pf the property in question as the sale consideration u/s.50C of the Act determined the LTCG at Rs.21,38,420/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the mater in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Apropos the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer, the same was assailed by the assessee both qua the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for initiating the re-assessment proceedings; as well as declining of his claim for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on merits. However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeal) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 5. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short AR ) for the assessee assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the Assessing Officer for re-opening of the assessee s case u/s. 147 of the Act. Elaborating on his aforesaid claim, it was submitted by the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his aforesaid contentions. As the Ld. AR has assailed the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer for reopening the case of the assessee and passing of the order u/s.148/143(3) of the Act, dated 30.04.2014, therefore, we shall first deal with the same. In order to verify the factual position, i.e., the veracity of the claim of the assessee that the Assessing Officer had initiated the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act without recording the reasons to believe , we had in the course of the hearing of the appeal, i.e., on 04.02.2022 directed Mr. G.N Singh, Ld. DR to produce the assessment records in the course of next hearing of the appeal. In compliance to the aforesaid directions, the assessment records of the assessee were placed before us in the course of hearing of the appeal on 31.03.2022. On a perusal of the assessment records we have come across the Notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 12.06.2013 issued by the AO, which for the sake of clarity is reproduced as under: However, neither the reasons to believe were found placed in the assessment record, nor any reference of the same havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recording of reasons to believe by the Assessing Officer prior to issuance of Notice u/s. 148 would render the jurisdiction assumed by him for reopening the case of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act and resultantly the consequential assessment so framed as invalid, is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: (A) Abdul Majid Vs. CIT (2006) 281 ITR 366 (All.) In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon ble High Court that recourse to proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, i.e, for reassessment, can be assumed validly on fulfillment of certain conditions, namely, there should be reasonable belief that the income has escaped assessment; reasons have to be recorded in writing ; and valid notice has to be issued under Section 148 of the Act before making reassessment. It was observed by the Hon ble High Court, that if any of the condition mentioned above is missing, then, the proceeding would be invalid and shall stand vitiated. (B) CIT Vs. Baldwin Boys High School (2014) 364 ITR 637 (Karn.) In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon ble High Court that the Assessing Officer is obliged to record reasons before issuing notice under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
