TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. The above appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:- (A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct to hold that not mentioning of assessment year in the notice u/s 148 dated 11.5.2000 would not make the reassessment proceedings illegal since the 142(1) notice dated 13.6.2000 mentioned the assessment year and the assessee was aware of the fact that the proceedings u/s 148 has been initiated for A.Y. 1997-98? (B) Whether the ITAT has rightly ignored that service of the valid notice u/s 148 is a condition precedent to assume jurisdiction of reassessment and mere knowledge or? (C) Whether non supply of the reasons alongwith the notice u/s 148 of the Act can validate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und. In further appeal to the Tribunal again the assessee raised the specific ground setting up invalidity of the reassessment proceedings for reasons of non disclosure of the assessment year in the reassessment notice. We have heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the department. At the very outset, Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee has confined his argument on question no.1. The Tribunal by its impugned order, dealt with the aforesaid objection raised by the assessee and negatived his claim. According to the Tribunal the assessee having not raised this ground at the stage of reassessment proceedings itself, it had conceded the same and the assessee di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of being addressed to the dealer was addressed to an entity which did not exist, the defect in the notice was fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction by a Sales Tax Officer." Further the Court had also held as under:- 26. From the aforesaid decisions, it follows that (i) a question relating to jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter can always be raised at any stage, be in appeal or revision, (ii) initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and/or service of notice are all questions relating to assumption of jurisdiction to assess escaped income, (iii) if an issue has not been decided in appeal and the matter has simply been remanded, the same can be raised again notwithstanding with the fact that no further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich we have already reproduced hereinbefore. The Tribunal had erred in law in declining to permit the appellant to raise those grounds. 28. The approach of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous in law for the reason that in the grounds of appeal filed against the order dated 21.03.1997, a specific ground relating to validity of proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Act had been taken which was not gone into by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while setting aside the assessment. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (supra) would not apply as the appellant is not claiming any deduction or relief on the taxibility of any item in the reopened assessment....