9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation into the "tax evasion through bogus Long Term Capital Gains/short term Capital Loss (LTCG/STCL) by way of manipulated trading", it was seen that you are one of the beneficiary who have taken bogus profit through scrip of Alankit Limited during the F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 13,18,244/-. In another investigation report received through insight portal from the DDIT(Inv.)-5(1), New Delhi, on the investigation into the similar inquiry as above, it is seen that you are one of the beneficiary who have taken bogus profit through scrip of Fireweb India Limited during the F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 20,71,632/-. As per the information on the basis of the investigation report, the value of these shares transacted offline is not in line with the market value of these shares as value of shares can easily be manipulated which results in over or under valuation of shares in the books of the beneficiary. As per the findings of the Investigation, you have taken bogus profit through scrips mentioned above, thereby taken benefit of bogus accommodation entry of Long-Term Capital Gain by trading in the above two scrips, total of which come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikkim, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands was vested with the Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation and Transfer Pricing)- Kolkata vide entry no. 4 in the said notification. The assessee thus submits that the jurisdiction over the assessee's case was vested with the officers functioning under the control of the Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation and Transfer Pricing)- Kolkata and not with officers in Surat. This fact has been admitted by the Department and hence, they transferred the file of the assessee from Surat to Kolkata and the same is mentioned in the assessment order on pages 35/36. This clarifies the issue that the Department itself has agreed that the Assessing Officers in Surat did not hold jurisdiction over the case. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has cited several decisions which are as follows: i) Anand Kumar Dugar vs. ITO, Ward-1 Vapi & Anr. ii) M/s Sym Singhal Alloys Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. iii) The Ananda Bag Tea Company Limited vs. Union of India and Others Gsp Piling iv) Constructions Private Limited and Anr. vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced below: "AO Jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 to a Non-resident Indian - fixed deposits were made out of remittances from Dubai and maturity of existing term deposits, interest on NRE account and inter se transfer of funds between various bank accounts of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Non-resident Indian residing at Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the address of the petitioner shown in the impugned order and notice is Vijayanagaram, Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, AO at Vapi, has no jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s 148A (a) or 148A (b) of the Act only on the basis of the information available on the insight portal. The petitioner has provided the details with regard to term deposits placed in two accounts with the HDFC Bank and has also provided bank statement with the reply. The petitioner has submitted the entire bank statement and the explanation that being NRE remittance in the account was made by the petitioner from Saudi Arabia out of salary credited and received outside India and out of maturity of the FDR. The petitioner has also provided the date wise details of all credit in the bank account with the HDFC bank during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedure irregularity and is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. This Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-11, Kolkata vs. Nopany & Sons reported in 2022(2)TMI 399- Calcutta High Court held that the proviso to Section 292BB could not stand attracted and the said section cannot be made applicable to the assessee's case. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. S.K. Industries reported-in [2022] 141 taxmann.com 569(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against the order of the High ' Court holding that where the assessing officer of a particular Circle passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) without issuing notice under Section 143(2) and only in pursuance with the notice issued under Section 143(2), he had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time and such assessment order was liable to be set aside. It is the submission of the learned standing counsel for the Department..-.that the assessee had not raised the question of jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
