2003 (6) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l facts for the disposal of these grounds of appeal are that the AO received information from the Directorate of Income-tax (Inv.) that the assessee had constructed a residential house No. 2321/23-C, Chandigarh. The cost of construction has been estimated at Rs. 5,00,000 whereas the assessee had shown the cost of construction at Rs. 2,25,000. Since there was a substantial difference between the cost of construction, the case was reopened under s. 148. In response to the notice issued by the AO, the assessee in his reply submitted that he was a regular assessee at Delhi and, therefore, the case should be transferred to Delhi. The AO moved a proposal for transfer of records on 23rd Jan., 1995, but from the concerned CIT(A), acceptance was not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the AO were bad in law and should be quashed. It was also contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee at the time of assessment had been ill-advised and under misconception of facts and in disturbed state of mind, had agreed to an addition of Rs. 2,25,000, and since the assessment itself is bad in law, therefore, the agreement also has no validity and, therefore, the assessment made by the AO is required to be cancelled. 2.2 After considering these submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) held that the assessment proceeding initiated by the AO were wholly without jurisdiction and so she annulled the assessment proceedings as the same were ab initio void by making the following observations in her order: "The submissions of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....easoning given in the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that she has rightly annulled the assessment proceedings initiated by the AO. 2.5 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the records and carefully gone through the orders of the tax authorities below. In this case, learned Departmental Representative was not able to controvert the submissions of the assessee made before the CIT(A) wherein he had contended that he was permanently residing at Delhi, running his taxi business and filing his income-tax returns regularly with the ITO, Ward 15(1), New Delhi. This has also not been controverted by the learned Departmental Representative that the assessee has even filed the return for the assessment year under consideration befor....