TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that return of income filed in the wrong jurisdiction be treated as non est. 7. For that the order of the CIT(A) is otherwise bad in law and fact of the case and fit to be a nulled, set aside or modified. 2. In this case the AO noted that the assessee is a Doctor from profession. He derives income from salary, profession and from other sources. The assessee has filed return of income for assessment year 2004-05 on 04-02-2005 in Range -6, Patna showing total income as Rs. 4,46,395/-. A survey u/s 133A of the I.T. Act was conducted in clinic premises of the assessee on 13-02-2004 by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Patna having jurisdiction over the case. The AO noted that having being well acquainted with the jurisdiction of his case, the assessee has willingly filed his return of income for assessment year 2004-05 on 04-02-2005 in the wrong jurisdiction of Range-6, Patna which is not for professionals, to save his case from selection of scrutiny. The AO further observed that the assessee quoted invalid PAN i.e. ABAPN7546C in this attempt. Whereas the correct PAN of the assessee is ABAPN7545C. The AO observed that return of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t (as recorded his statement on oath), therefore, the credit entries of Rs. 2,87,016.00 is taken as unexplained income. 5. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the learned CIT(Appeals). At the threshold, before the learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee has challenged the validity of notice on the ground that it has not been signed by the AO or for that matter by any person or it does not bear the official seal of the Department, hence notice so issued is an invalid notice and any proceeding started in consequence thereof is void ab initio. That this effect in the invalid notice is not curable by provision of section 292B of the Act and the proceeding initiated by the AO is illegal. The learned CIT(Appeals) observed that, on perusal of the records of the case, it is observed that the notice in ITNS-34 bearing no. 831 dated 20/23.06.2006 has been found to issued by office of ACIT, Circle-1, Patna. However, this notice does not bear the signature of the AO which is under challenge. 6. The learned CIT(Appeals) referred to section 292BB of the I.T. Act and observed that the assessee has never raised any objection in respect of irregularity of notice being not signed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be ignored and A.O. can proceed to serve notice u/s 148. In the present case on account of return not being in its jurisdiction for want of valid PAN, the A.O. can be set to have sufficient reason to issue notice and for reasons as discussed above the action of the A.O. in initiation of reassessment proceeding is being upheld." 7. On merits learned CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition on account of income, however, directed for deletion of addition made on account of unexplained credit in the bank account. 8. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 9. I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Learned counsel of the assessee submitted that there is a fundamental defect in this case regarding reopening inasmuch notice u/s 148 has not been signed and it is an unsigned document. Further more learned counsel submitted a copy of the order sheet in paper book which showed that after giving initial date on 20-06-2006 and thereafter recording the reasons, the said document was signed by the AO on 13-07-2006. Hence learned counsel pleaded that the reasons have been recorded after the issue of notice supposedly at 20-06-2006. Learned counsel further pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 (M.P.) iii) S.B. Muthumunia Mudaliar vs. CIT 85 ITR 12 (Mad.). Thus the unsigned notice is not a curable irregularity but is a nullity. 12. Furthermore I notice that the assessee's plea that reasons were recorded subsequent to the issue of the said so called notice on 20-06-2006 has been rejected by the learned CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his observation that "as it is evident from the certified copy of the reasons so obtained and attached as per annexure II of the paper book" Learned CIT(Appeals) has further proceeded to observe that "it has been assailed that notice was issued on 20.06.2006 certified copy has been issued on 31.07.2006. In this regard copy of order sheet as per annexure has been perused which is reflecting reasons recorded in the case of the appellant. The order sheet has opening date of 20.06.2006 but the same is found to be signed on 13.07.2006. There is no correlation between these two dates, but in totality of circumstances and following the principles of rule of ejusdem generis of interpretation of status which provided the later has to follow earlier and any construction of situation has to flow from top to bottom. In the present case since the order ....