TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction over the case of the assessee remained with the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai, then on what basis he had issued notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 09.03.2018. It is neither the case of the department nor a fact discernible from the records that at any point of time the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was either transferred to; or had remained vested with the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai. Now when the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai did not have any jurisdiction over the case of the assessee as on 09.03.2018, i.e. the date of issuance of the notice u/s.148 of the Act, therefore, the inescapable view that can be drawn therefrom is that he had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and initiated proceedings u/s.147 of the Act in the case of the assessee under consideration. When the assessee has assailed the framing of the assessment u/ss.144/147 dated 07.12.2018 on the ground that the initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act by the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai is without authority of law and, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction, the aforesaid objection of the Ld. DR that the failure on the part of the assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O within the time limit prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorized Representatives of both the parties, I have no hesitation in admitting the same. My aforesaid view that where an additional ground of appeal involving purely a question of law requiring no further verification of facts is raised before the Tribunal, though for the first time, then, the same merits admission is supported by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). 3. Succinctly stated, the A.O on the basis of information that the assessee had made cash deposits of 10,74,990/- in his savings bank account but had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, thus, reopened his case u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 09.03.2018 was issued by the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai. As the assessee in the course of the assessment despite sufficient opportunities by the A.O had failed to participate in the proceedings, therefore, the A.O vide ex-parte order passed u/s.144/147 of the Act dated 07.12.2018 had after treating the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs.10,74,990/-(supra) as the unexplained income of the assessee, determined his total income at Rs.10,74,990/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lai clearly lacked jurisdiction for initiating proceedings by recording the reasons to believe , dated nil and issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 09.03.2018. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that now when the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee pursuant to the Notification No.01/2014-15 dated 15.11.2014 of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Bhilai remained with the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai, therefore, initiation of the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act by the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai was devoid and bereft of any force of law. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that in absence of any valid initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the assessment framed by the A.O vide his order u/ss. 144/147 dated 07.12.2018 could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down on the said count itself. 8. Also, the Ld. AR had placed his contentions as regards the merits of the case in order to impress upon me that no addition on the said count could have been made in the hands of the assessee. 9. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short DR ) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2018? Also, as an analogy that can be drawn therefrom is as to whether the assessment framed by the ACIT-2(1), Bhilai vide his order passed u/ss.144/147 dated 07.12.2018 can be sustained on the basis of notice issued by the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai u/s. 148 of the Act dated 09.03.2018? 13. On a perusal of the records, I find that the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai vide his letter dated 10.04.2018, had, inter alia, transferred the case of the assessee a/w. relevant case records for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2013-14 to ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai, for the reason that as per the Notification No.01/2014-15 dated 15.11.2014 of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Bhilai, the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was vested with the latter i.e. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai. For the sake of clarity, the aforesaid letter dated 10.04.2018 is culled out as under: (relevant extract) S. No. Name of the assessee PAN A.Y. Notice Remarks 1 to 23 Xxxx Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxx xxxx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hilai, therefore, he could not have assailed the same for the very first time in the course of the present proceedings, in my considered view does not merit acceptance. As stated by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, as the notice u/s.148, dated 09.03.2018 issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai was not a notice issued by an authority falling within the meaning of Assessing Officer i.e. either of the authorities contemplated in Section 2(7A) of the Act, viz. such authority who was vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of any directions or orders issued under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Act or any other provision of the Act; or any such authority who was directed under clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 120 to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under the Act; therefore, no obligation was cast upon the assessee to call in question his jurisdiction on receipt of notice u/s.148, dated 09.03.2018 from him. My aforesaid conviction that where an assessee is in receipt of notice from an officer who was not vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued, cannot be curtailed on the ground that such objection was raised beyond the period referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act. Section 124 of the Act pertains to jurisdiction of Assessing Officers. Sub- section (1) of Section 124 lays down territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Sub-section (2) of Section 124 provides that where the question arises under said section, as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, such question shall be determined by the authority prescribed under the said sub-section. Sub-section (3) of section 124 provides time limits for a person to call in question jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer. Clause (c) of sub- section (3) of section 124 provides that no person shall be entitled to call in question jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer where an action has been taken under Section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one months from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub- section (1) of Section 153A or sub-section (2) of Section 153C of the Act or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. In clear terms, the time limit for raising objection to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
