9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal is excessive, unjust, contrary to facts and is against law. 2. That the Learned Assessing Officer has wrongly passed the order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That the authorities below ought to have considered that the notice under Section 148 was wrongly issued by the Assessing Officer as the initial notice issued by Income Tax Officer was without jurisdiction. The said Assessing Officer did not have any jurisdiction to issue the notice and hence the proceedings are not maintainable in law. 4. That authorities below ought to have considered that the notice under Section 148 was never served to the appellant. The department has not adduced any evidence to prove the proper service of notice to the appellant and hence in the absence of proper service of notice, the proceedings cannot be sustained. 5. That authorities below have erred in making addition of Rs.25,51,210/- when the same are not sustainable as the amount deposited in the bank account pertained to the sale of rural agricultural land which is out of the ambit of capital gain tax and hence not liable for any tax in the relevant Assessment Year and thus the order of the authorities is bad in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction, as the assessee was NRI and the approving authority i.e. PCIT-1, Chandigarh, also did not have any jurisdiction to give sanction for notice u/s 148 and, thus, the proceedings as initiated u/s 148 are void on account of the fact that, initiation of the proceedings by the AO are without jurisdiction. 8. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee, thus, argued that though the assessee had intimated to Assessing Officer, Ward 4 (4), Chandigarh that he was an NRI as per the letter dated 14.03.2016 in the year under assessment, but the Assessing Officer Ward-3(1), Chandigarh went ahead to issue notice u/s 148.. The assessee never asked for transfer of the case to the DCIT, International Taxation, Chandigarh. Relying on various case laws, the ld. Counsel argued, on the basis of the Jurisdictional bench of ITAT and of the coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi, Jaipur and Raipur Tribunal and of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court, for which, the brief synopsis were filed sought the quashing of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 as framed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 22.12.2016. The reliance is placed on the following judgements: - * The DCIT vs. Shri Manjeet Singh as reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since, that was on different facts and that judgment is not applicable at all. Identical facts of the case are in the case of 'Sh. Manjit Singh' of Chandigarh Bench, particularly and other judgments as cited 'supra' and, as such, the confirmation of the order of the AO by the Ld. CIT(A) was highly unjustified. 11. The ld. DR argued before us that the DCIT, International Taxation, Chandigarh had rightly framed the assessment on the basis of the issuance of notice by Ward-3(1) as it was found, later on, that the assessee was NRI and relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A). The Assessee was also present at the time of hearing and he admitted that there was no fresh issue of a notice u/s 148 by the DCIT, International Taxation, Chandigarh and neither, there was a communication from the assessee regarding the transfer of case from the ITO, Ward-3(1) to the DCIT, International Taxation, Chandigarh. The ld. DR sought the confirmation of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 12. We have considered the rival submissions and the order of the Assessing Officer and of the ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed by the Counsel of assessee along with the copies of the various judgments. Facts unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice issued by the ITO, Ward 3 (1), Chandigarh. Thus, the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer, International Taxation cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it deserves to be quashed. 15. We are fortified by the finding given in the case of Sh. Manjit Singh in ITA No. 512/Chd/2022 and CO. No. 13/Chd/2022 wherein, the following finding has been given: "15. We have considered the arguments of Id. Counsel of the assessee and the Id. DR as well as the brief synopsis and written submissions along with the judgments relied upon by both the sides and also the various case laws as cited before us. It is a fact borne out from record that prior to the issue of notice u/s 148 vide notice dated 28.03.2019 for the assessment year under consideration that the assessee is a non-resident as per the facts stated above by the Id. Counsel and the documents submitted before us for Assessment Year 2011-12. It is also a fact that the assessee is a citizen of USA and is holding American Passport and notice u/s 148 was issued by the non-jurisdictional ITO and as per the judgment of the Delhi ITAT in the case of Mukesh Kumar and of the Chandigarh Bench and Delhi Be ch of the ITAT and the othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
