Appeal Dismissed: Lack of Jurisdiction Upheld

The Revenue's appeal regarding the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act was dismissed, and the cross objection by the assessee was allowed. The order canceling the assessment due to lack of jurisdiction was upheld based on the notice issued by the incorrect assessing officer. The Tribunal found the assessment completed under the reopened jurisdiction to be invalid, citing previous decisions in support of their ruling.

---

---

Issues involved: Jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act

Summary:
1. The appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee arose from the order of Ld. CIT(A) XXIII, New Delhi.
2. The main issue in Revenue's appeal was the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee was regularly assessed in Delhi, but the assessment was reopened by the I.T.O. Ward 1(5) Faridabad. The records were later transferred to ACIT Circle 23(1), New Delhi. The order u/s 143(3)/147 was passed on 29.12.2008.
3. The assessee raised 11 grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A), one of which related to nonservice of notice u/s 148. Ld. CIT(A) held that the order passed by the A.O. was bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction.
4. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee argued that the notice u/s 148 was not issued by the A.O. having jurisdiction over the case, rendering the assessment bad in law. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anjil Khosla case was cited in support.
5. The Tribunal found that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the A.O. Ward 1(5), Faridabad, while the assessee was assessed in Delhi. The assessment completed by ACIT, Circle 23(1), New Delhi based on the Faridabad notice was deemed bad in law. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions to support the cancellation of the assessment.

Decision:
- The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
- The cross objection filed by the assessee was allowed.
- The order passed by Ld. CIT(A) canceling the assessment was upheld.

---