Transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 requires no assessee communication, but Section 68 addition deleted due to adequate creditor documentation.

The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed challenges to assessment reopening, holding that transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 requires no communication to assessee as it involves internal administrative transfer, and the assessing officer possessed valid jurisdiction. The contention regarding review of original assessment was rejected as the officer addressed different issues while recording reasons for reopening. The absence of proper sanction under Section 151 was deemed non-objectionable since assessee failed to raise timely objections. However, the addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits was deleted, as assessee adequately established identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of creditors through documentary evidence including ITR, confirmations, and loan repayment details.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment without proper sanction under Section 151 of the Act.
2. Addition made under Section 68 of the Act for unexplained cash credits.
3. Jurisdictional transfer issue regarding the assessment.
4. Review of original assessment order and its permissibility.

Validity of Reopening of Assessment:
The appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The original assessment was reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act due to discrepancies. The Assessing Officer observed unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act and made additions. The assessee challenged the reopening, citing lack of valid sanction under Section 151. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, noting that the assessee did not object to the satisfaction at the relevant time, making the cited decisions inapplicable.

Addition under Section 68 of the Act:
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 4,75,00,000 under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits. The assessee provided details of the transactions, including repayments and bank transactions, to establish genuineness. The Tribunal found the explanations satisfactory and allowed the appeal, stating that the addition was unjustified. The Tribunal considered the details provided by the assessee regarding the loans from Shukan Finance & Investment and concluded that the addition was not warranted.

Jurisdictional Transfer Issue:
The issue of jurisdictional transfer from ITO, Circle-I, Gandhinagar to DCIT, Circle Gandhinagar was raised. The Tribunal noted that the transfer was internal and did not require communication to the assessee. It was held that the review of the original assessment order was justified as the Assessing Officer dealt with different issues in the reopening. The Tribunal dismissed the contention that the order of reopening was bad in law due to lack of communication regarding the transfer of jurisdiction.

Review of Original Assessment Order:
The assessee contended that the review of the original assessment order was impermissible. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer addressed different issues in the reopening, justifying the review. The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the review of the original assessment order, citing internal administrative transfer and the Assessing Officer's power to pass the assessment order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, dismissing grounds related to the validity of reopening and jurisdictional transfer while allowing the appeal on the addition made under Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal found the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the unexplained cash credits satisfactory, leading to the dismissal of the addition.

---