Appeal dismissed, notice under section 148 upheld by Tribunal

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the notice issued under section 148 by the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack, the jurisdiction of the ITO at the time of issuing the notice, and the application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the notice was valid despite the change in the assessee's address, as the jurisdiction remained with the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack when the notice was issued. The Tribunal determined that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material and applied his mind before reopening the assessment, concluding that the assessment made under section 144/147 was appropriate.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 148 by the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack.
2. Jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack at the time of issuing the notice.
3. Application of mind by the Assessing Officer while forming the belief of income escapement.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 148:
The assessee contended that the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack issued the notice under section 148 without having jurisdiction as the assessee had shifted to Midnapore, West Bengal. The notice was issued to the address in Midnapore, which indicated that the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack was aware of the change in address. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice, stating that the jurisdiction over the assessee’s case was with the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack when the notice was issued on 30.03.2018. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Principal CIT vs. M/s. I-Ven Interactive Limited, which held that mere mentioning of a new address in the return of income without specifically intimating the Assessing Officer and without getting the PAN database changed is not sufficient. Therefore, the notice issued by the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack was valid.

2. Jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack:
The assessee argued that the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack did not have jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 as the address had changed to Midnapore. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not inform the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack about the change of address, nor did he request for the transfer of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction was transferred to the ITO, Ward-38(4), Midnapore only after the Principal CIT passed an order under section 127 on 14.09.2018. The Tribunal concluded that the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack had jurisdiction over the assessee’s case when the notice under section 148 was issued and the subsequent transfer of jurisdiction did not invalidate the notice.

3. Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer:
The assessee claimed that the notice under section 148 was issued mechanically without the Assessing Officer applying his mind to the material on record. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had specific information from the Investigation Wing about the sale of immovable property and the resultant long-term capital gain. The Assessing Officer verified the information, computed the capital gain, and noted that the assessee had not filed a return for the relevant year. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had tangible material, made necessary verifications, and applied his mind before forming the belief that income had escaped assessment. The reopening of the assessment was thus in accordance with law.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the validity of the notice issued under section 148, the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack, and the application of mind by the Assessing Officer were upheld. The Tribunal found no merit in the arguments presented by the assessee and confirmed the assessment made under section 144/147.

---