TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....non-jurisdiction assessing officer and the reassessment order was passed by ACIT, Rohtak? C. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in law in not following its own orders and decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court given in similar cases thus the impugned order is against the principle of judicial consistency? D. Whether the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal is perverse in nature as the Tribunal has passed the impugned order without appreciating the evidences/pleadings and in contravenion of provision of law? 3. As questions of law to be answered are same in all the appeals, the appeals have been taken up together for adjudicaiton. Facts have been taken from Income Tax Appeal No.41 of 2013. 4. The assessee is a resident of New Delhi at the address given in the Bank records and was maintaining her account in Bank of Rajasthan, New Delhi. On a tip of, that a racket involving accommodation entries was at work, the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Delhi conducted large scale investigations to unearth such racket. It was found that certain unscrupulous persons were involved in giving accommodation entries in the forms of bogus gifts/loans/share application money/captial gain etc.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on 14.12.2002. Cheque of Rs.5 lacs was cleared on 5.12.2002 itself. 7. The Assessing Officer had come to a firm finding that donors Manoj Kumar Batra and Vishnu Kumar Jain had provided accommodation entries of cash by opening their bank accounts for this purpose only and that the alleged donors were not actual donors but were engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. 8. Concededly, there was neither any blood relationship of donors with the assessee nor there was any occasion for making the alleged gifts. The assessee had not been able to produce the donors before the Assessing Officer. Holding that the so called donors were bogus and that these entries, in fact, had reflected undisclosed income of the assessee, which was wilfully and intentionally not disclosed just to evade tax incidence. Sequelly, treating Rs.10 lacs as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources, it was charged to income tax. Penalty proceedings were also started. 9. This order of 21.12.2010 (Annexure A-1) though was reversed by CIT (Appeals), Rohtak vide order dated 9.9.2011 (Annexure A-2) was affirmed in favour of the revenue by the Tribunal on 19.10.2012 (Annexure A-3). 10. Plea o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 regarding disclosing of reasons and in issuance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. 14. The moment it was disclosed by the assessee that she was being assessed to income tax at Rohtak and had furnished particulars thereof, on her request, the matter was transferred to Rohtak. 15. Now the question arises as to whether notice under Section 148 as also Section 142(1) of the Act was to be re-issued by the Assessing Officer at Rohtak? Had it been a case of absence of jurisdiction with income tax authorities at Delhi, issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer at Rohtak was sine qua non for legality of the proceedings but when authorities at Delhi were competent to initiate proceedings, the assessee being a resident of Delhi where she was having a bank account wherein dubious entries were found to exist, there was neither want nor error of jurisdiction. Had the assessee not being assessed to income tax at Rohtak, Delhi authorities were to proceed further in the matter. It was only a matter of convenience for the assessee as also to maintain consistency and uniformity that on her request, the matter was transferred to Rohtak where she was already being assessed. 16. Reliance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g at Delhi where she was operating her bank account in which certain dubious transactions were made, which on investigations were found to be accommodation entries taken by the assessee from entry providers who were working as a racket. Residence of the assessee was at Delhi. She was operating her bank account at Delhi. Her address at Delhi had also been prominently recorded in the record of the bank. Dubious entries of heavy amounts had been traced to her bank account. After recording reasons in terms of Section 147 of the Act that certain income of the assessee had escaped assessment and after complying with the legal requirements, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the income tax authorities to the assessee at her Delhi address. It was followed by yet another notice in terms of Section 142(1) of the Act. It is a conceded fact that immediately on request of the assessee for transfer of her case to Income Tax Officer, Rohtak (where she was being assessed), such request was accepted and her case was transferred to Rohtak, where subsequent proceedings were conducted. 20. In the present case, income tax authorities at Delhi were not strangers to the assessee as the as....