Reassessment proceedings void due to absence of valid section 148 notice from jurisdictional officer

ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to absence of valid notice under section 148. The jurisdictional AO (ACIT Circle-24(2), Hooghly) admitted lack of jurisdiction over the assessee, with correct jurisdiction lying with ACIT Circle-23(1), Hooghly. Since no fresh notice under section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional officer, the reassessment proceedings were deemed illegal and bad in law. All additions made during reassessment were deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO).
2. Issuance of notice under Section 148.
3. Issuance of notice under Section 143(2).
4. Validity of reassessment proceedings.
5. Addition of Rs. 37,20,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69.
6. Requirement to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO):
The primary issue raised by the assessee was the jurisdiction of the AO who issued the notice under Section 148. The assessee contended that the notice was issued by ACIT, Circle-24(2), Hooghly, who later transferred the case to ACIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly. The Tribunal observed that once the ACIT, Circle-24(2), Hooghly admitted that he did not have jurisdiction, a fresh notice under Section 148 should have been issued by the correct jurisdictional officer, ACIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly. The failure to issue a fresh notice rendered the reassessment proceedings illegal, bad in law, and void ab initio.

2. Issuance of Notice under Section 148:
The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 was not issued by the jurisdictional AO. The Tribunal referred to the case of Manish Jain vs. ITO, where it was held that the reassessment proceedings are invalid if the notice under Section 148 is not issued by the jurisdictional AO. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings in the present case were similarly invalid due to the lack of a valid notice under Section 148 by the jurisdictional AO.

3. Issuance of Notice under Section 143(2):
The Tribunal observed that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by ACIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly, after the case was transferred. However, since the initial notice under Section 148 was not valid, the subsequent notice under Section 143(2) could not rectify the jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal referred to multiple judicial precedents, including the cases of PCIT vs. Mohan Chand Motilal and PCIT vs. Nopani & Sons, which emphasized the mandatory nature of issuing a valid notice under Section 143(2) by the jurisdictional AO.

4. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the jurisdictional defect and the lack of a valid notice under Section 148. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, citing the decision in the case of Manish Jain and other relevant judicial precedents. The Tribunal emphasized that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law and void ab initio.

5. Addition of Rs. 37,20,000 as Unexplained Investment under Section 69:
The Tribunal noted that the AO made an addition of Rs. 37,20,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69, alleging that the investment was from undisclosed sources. The assessee argued that the actual investment was duly recorded in the balance sheet and no evidence was brought on record by the AO to prove otherwise. However, since the reassessment proceedings were quashed on jurisdictional grounds, the Tribunal did not need to adjudicate this issue on merits.

6. Requirement to Refer the Matter to the DVO:
The assessee contended that the matter should have been referred to the DVO for determining the fair market value of the property. The Tribunal did not address this issue separately as the reassessment proceedings were already quashed on jurisdictional grounds.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, quashing the reassessment proceedings on the basis of jurisdictional defects and the lack of a valid notice under Section 148. Consequently, the additions made in the reassessment proceedings were deleted. The Tribunal refrained from addressing the remaining grounds as they became infructuous due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 22nd May, 2024.

---