sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 Assistant Commissioner Assessment Iv Trade Tax, Varanasi & Ors. Vs M/s Auto Centre
 Ansal Housing And Construction Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
 40 LPA-Opening Financial Controller
 30 LPA-Opening Senior Manager Finance & Accounts,
 Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 ITO vs. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)
 Pesak Ventures Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. Texraj Realty P.Ltd (Gujarat High Court)
 PCIT vs. Texraj Realty P.Ltd (Gujarat High Court)
 Ahmed Charaniya vs Jasmine Charaniya
  Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Saabri Freight Carrier Pvt Ltd

Mukesh Kumar 104 BD Chamber DB Gupta Road,Karol Bagh New Delhi Vs. ITO Ward-26(3), New Delhi.
June, 15th 2015
                 DELHI BENCH: `E' NEW DELHI
                      I.T.A .No.-2358/Del/2012
                    (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05)
Mukesh Kumar                     Vs.        ITO
104 BD Chamber DB Gupta Road,               Ward-26(3),
Karol Bagh                                  New Delhi.
New Delhi.
(APPELLANT)                                 (RESPONDENT)

                   Assessee by:- None
                   Revenue by:- Sh. P. Dankanunjna, Sr. DR.
                   Date of Hearing: 14/05/2015
                   Date of Pronouncement: 12/06/2015



      This is an appeal filed by the appellant directed against the order of ld.

CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi in Appeal No.95/11-12 dated 01.03.2012 for the

assessment year 2004-05. These grounds raised in this appeal are as under:

          "1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts
              by upholding assessment order framed by assessing officer
              u/s 144/147 of the Act, determining the alleged total income
              of Rs.4,53,179/- against the income returned of
              Rs.1,13,710/- by taking recourse to the provisions of section
              147/148 of the IT Act and inter alia making wholly
              unwarranted addition of Rs.9,13,710/- on account of
              unexplained and bogus gift.
          2.   That the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act dated 16/03/2009 is
               bad in law and without jurisdiction in as much as there was
               no material or evidence on record to form a reason to
               believe that any income of the assessee, for the concerned
               assessment year has escaped assessment. The information
               received from DIT (Inv.)-I, New Delhi, was wholly
                                                I.T.A .No.-2358/Del/2012       2

               insufficient and could not be cogent material to assme a
               valid jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of IT Act. Learned CIT(A)
               turned down the submission of the assessee without looking
               in to the detail.
          3.   That the assessment as framed is ab-initio being without
               jurisdiction as same has been framed without confronting to
               the assessee any material or evidence received from the DIT
               (Inv)-I, New Delhi, to show that the assessee has received
               bogus accommodation entry amounting to Rs.9,13,710/-.
               The assessment has been made on complete non application
               of mind. Learned CIT(A) ignored the reply/rebut of remand
               report submitted by the assessee. No opportunity for cross
               examination was given by the CIT(A).
          4.   That the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and law by
               upholding the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act, failing to
               appreciate that provision of section 68 of the Act were
               wholly inapplicable as the assessee never maintained any
               books of accounts.
          5.   That in any case, the impugned assessment has been framed
               in violation of the principles of natural justice without
               granting to the assessee a fair, proper and reasonable
               opportunity to the instant case. "
2.    Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual.

He filed return of income for A.Y. 2004-05 subsequently on the basis of

information received from Investigation Wing, New Delhi that the appellant had

received an entry of Rs.4 lac from one Shri Trilok Chand Bansal on 3rd

September 2003 and Rs.4 lac from Shri Subhash Gupta on 4th September 2003,

a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 16th March 2009. In

response to said notice, the appellant submitted that the return filed u/s 139 may

be treated as return in response to section 148 of the Act. From the assessment

order, it was clear that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the ITO Ward-26(4),

New Delhi. Based on the reply filed by the ld. Representative the case was
                                                I.T.A .No.-2358/Del/2012    3

transferred to ITO Ward-26(3) New Delhi who had valid jurisdiction over the

appellant. The appellant has not complied with the notices u/s 143(2) and

142(1) of the Act, therefore, the AO was constrained to complete assessment ex

parte by bringing to tax the said amount of Rs.8 lac.

3.    Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-XVIII,

New Delhi, who vide order dated 1st March 2012 in Appeal No.95/11-12 had

dismissed the appeal. It was contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the re-

assessment proceedings u/s 147 are invalid in law, inasmuch, as there were no

reasons to believe that the assessment got escaped tax. It was further contended

that the notice issue u/s 148 was invalid, since the ITO who issued notice u/s

148 had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant. On the merit it was contended

that the appellant discharged his onus that lying upon the appellant as the

identity and genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender have been proved

by filing the PAN and ITR of the creditors, however, the ld. CIT(A) has rejected

the contention of the appellant on the legality of the reassessment proceedings

and as well as on merits. Aggrieved the appellant is before us.

4.    No one was present on behalf of the appellant. Ld. Sr. Departmental

Representative has placed reliance on the order of the lower authorities.

5.    We perused the relevant material on record. In the present case the notice

u/s 148 was issued on 2 nd March 2009 by ITO Ward-26(4) New Delhi. After

receipt of notice the appellant had responded through its authorized
                                                 I.T.A .No.-2358/Del/2012       4

Representative and submitted the copy of the return filed under provisions of

section 139. After noticing that the jurisdiction over the appellant is vested with

ITO Ward-26(3), the file was transferred by ITO Ward-26(4) to ITO Ward -

26(3). The ITO Ward-26(3), New Delhi had proceeded with the framing

assessment without issuing fresh notice u/s 148. It means that ITO Ward-26(4),

New Delhi had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant, at the time of issuing

notice u/s 148 of the Act. In such circumstances, it was held by the Hon'ble

Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012)

349 ITR 271 (All.) that the notice issued by an Officer who had no valid

jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. The notice under Section 148 of the Act

issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4) is non est in the eyes of law

since he had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant either territorial as notified

under Section 124 of the Act or by transferring the case under the provisions of

Section 127 of the Act. Now, the question is whether the action of the Income

Tax Officer, Ward-26(3) New Delhi was valid in law in concluding the

assessment proceedings based on the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act

by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4) who had no valid jurisdiction to issue

the notice. The issue of valid jurisdiction is a condition precedent to the validity

of any assessment under Section 147 of the Act; therefore, the assessment made

pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this proposition we rely upon

the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO,

35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421
                                                I.T.A .No.-2358/Del/2012      5

(SC); and CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above settled

principle of law, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings

since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding

was made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is


6.     Since we have quashed the reassessment proceedings, we find it not

necessary to adjudicate the grounds relating to the merits of the addition.

7.     In the result, the appeal is allowed.

       Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/06/2015.

       Sd/-                                                Sd/-

  (I.C. SUDHIR)                                (INTURI RAMA RAO)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                                ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 12 /06/2015


Copy forwarded to:

1.   Appellant
2.   Respondent
3.   CIT
4.   CIT(Appeals)
5.   DR: ITAT
                                                    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                              I.T.A .No.-2358/Del/2012    6


1.    Draft dictated on                    11/06/2015             PS

2.    Draft placed before author           12/06/2015             PS

3.    Draft proposed & placed before the                          JM/AM
      second member

4.    Draft   discussed/approved      by                          JM/AM
      Second Member.

5.    Approved Draft comes to the                                 PS/PS

6.    Kept for pronouncement on                                   PS

7.    File sent to the Bench Clerk                                PS

8.    Date on which file goes to the AR

9.    Date on which file goes to the
      Head Clerk.

10.   Date of dispatch of Order.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Team

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions