TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s.142(1) was issued to the assessee by the ITO (CIB-2), Pune calling for the return of income for the A.Y.2005-06. Although notice was duly served on the assessee neither the assessee complied with the notice nor furnished any reply to the notice. Therefore, another notice u/s.142(2) was issued to the assessee calling for certain details. Since there was no compliance to this notice although the same was duly served on the assessee the Assessing Officer issued a third notice u/s.142(1) which was also duly served on the assessee. However, since there was no compliance the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.144 by treating the investment of Rs.12,70,000 as unexplained investment. 3. Before the CIT(A) the assessee challenged the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in annulling the assessment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that the scrutiny proceedings were initiated by the Income-Tax Officer (CIB-2), Pune, on the basis of NON PAR AIR Data and was very much within his jurisdiction. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the I.T. Act in the absence of any response from the assessee inspite of v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the CCIT, Pune u/s.120 of the Income Tax Act, the ITO CIB-2, Pune had no jurisdiction over the assessee to frame the assessment. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Sayali (Aparna) S. Patil vide ITA No.32/PN/2009 order dated 29-07-2011 for A.Y. 2005-06 he submitted that under identical facts and circumstances the Tribunal had held that the assessment framed by the ITO (HQ) (CIB) in absence of having jurisdiction is null and void. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) should be upheld. 8. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also co....