2017 (11) TMI 517 - AT - Income Tax

Invalid Re-assessment Initiation: Lack of Jurisdiction. Ruling in favor of assessee, quashing proceedings.

Anant Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Meerut

The Tribunal held that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. The ... Reopening of assessment - addition us 68 - jurisdiction of ITO over the assessee - Held that:- Considering the facts of the case in the light of decision in the case of Shri S.N. Bhargava [2013 (10) TMI 512 - ITAT AGRA] it is clear that ITO at Ghaziabad was not having jurisdiction over the assessee. Therefore, he should not have recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment and further he did not examine any information supplied by Investigation Wing and that he was having no reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his jurisdiction and such facts are also not mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. The ITO at Meerut has, therefore, not validly assume the jurisdiction to initiate the re- assessment proceedings because he has merely followed the reasons recorded by ITO at Ghaziabad who was not having jurisdiction over the assessee. The issue is therefore, covered in favour of the assessee Issues Involved:1. Validity of the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.2. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to record reasons for re-assessment.3. Legality of the addition of Rs. 9 lakhs under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act:The re-assessment proceedings were initiated based on information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, which indicated that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries from various paper companies controlled by the Shri S.K. Jain group. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad recorded the reasons for re-opening the assessment and issued a notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act on 3rd July 2013. However, the assessment was later transferred to ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, who completed the re-assessment without recording fresh reasons.2. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to record reasons for re-assessment:The ITO at Ghaziabad recorded the reasons for re-opening the assessment, but the jurisdiction for the assessee's case lay with ITO, Meerut. The ITO, Meerut, did not record any fresh reasons for re-opening the assessment and proceeded based on the reasons recorded by ITO, Ghaziabad. The transfer of the case from Ghaziabad to Meerut was not supported by any transfer order from a competent authority, and both districts are controlled by different Commissioners.3. Legality of the addition of Rs. 9 lakhs under section 68 of the Income Tax Act:The addition of Rs. 9 lakhs was made under section 68 of the I.T. Act, based on the information that the assessee received unexplained sums from entry operators. However, since the initiation of the re-assessment proceedings itself was found to be invalid due to the lack of jurisdiction and proper recording of reasons, the addition under section 68 also stands invalid.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act was invalid as the ITO at Ghaziabad, who recorded the reasons, did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. The ITO at Meerut, who had jurisdiction, did not record any fresh reasons and merely acted on the borrowed satisfaction of ITO, Ghaziabad. This was against the provisions of law, and thus, the re-assessment proceedings were quashed. Consequently, all additions made during the re-assessment were deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.