TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Because Sri H.N Rai Income Tax officer 2(3) Ghaziabad has no jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings U/S 147 of the Act. He had also no authority/jurisdiction to record the reasons for reopening the assessment U/S147 of the Act and also to issue the notice U/s 148 of the Act as the appellant never filed his returns of income at Ghaziabad in the past and present. The original records of the appellant were with the assessing officer, Agra as he was an old and regular income tax assessee at Agra since long. 3. Because the initiation of reassessment proceedings is wrong improper, illegal and are without jurisdiction. The original return of Income of the assessee was not before the Income Tax office Ghaziabad at the time of reopening of the assessment and as such the initiation of the assessment proceedings were illegal and bad in Law abinitio. 4. Because the Income Tax Officer Ghaziabad had no reason to believe that the Income of the appellant has escaped assessment as the original record of the appellant was not with him. 5. Because the notice U/S 148 of the Act was not served upon the appellant himself. The Income Tax Officer 2(4) Agra has al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee at interest rate of 2% in the assessment year was mentioned. This agreement is duly notarized and signed by two witnesses. Since reopening of the case is based on this specific information and copy of agreement available on record, AO is correct in law in reopening this case. Assessee has also raised the issue of jurisdiction on issuing notice by ITO 2(3), Ghaziabad. In this connection it is seen that this agreement was found by DDIT(lnv), Ghaziabad who forwarded the same to the Assessing Officer at Ghaziabad, as from the addresses mentioned in this notarized agreement, address of the assessee was mentioned as C-7, Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad and hence opportunity the assessee would be taxed in Ghaziabad. ITO 2(3), Ghaziabad issued the initial notice, under section 147/148 of the income tax Act. Assessee had asked for the inspection of record that was allowed to him and certified copies of all the documents were provided to him. On receiving application from the assessee that is assessed in Agra, the case was transferred to ITO 2(4) in Agra. Since the assessment is made by ITO Agra, there is no case for assessment being made without jurisdiction. 5.3.1 Sti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income Tax vs. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.', ITA No. 1628 of 2009 High Court of Kerala. (v) 'CIT vs. India Terminal Connector System Ltd.', ITA No.643/2011 High Court of Delhi. 7. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The assessee's contention is that the ITO-2(3) Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings, as the assessee has always been and remains assessed at Agra and not at Ghaziabad. The undisputed facts in this regard, as per the synopsis, are as follows: "The assessee SPS Raghav joined the U.P. government service in year 1973 as Assistant Engineer of Jal Nigam. He was posted at different places in UP as per detail given below :- 1. During F.Y. 1973 - 1976 as Assistant Engineer of Jal Nigam at Farrukhabad. 2. During Oct. 1976 - May 1986 as Assistant Engineer ADA at Agra. 3. During May 1986 - May 1990 as Executive Engineer of GDA at Ghaziabad. 4. During June 1990 - Aug. 1995 as Executive Engineer of MDA at Meerut. 5. During Aug. 1995 - Jan. 1996 as Superintendent Engineer of ADA at Agra. 6. During Feb. 1996 - July 1997 as Superintendent E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recorded the reasons of his own for forming his belief and issued the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. On the same reason as recorded by the AO, the notice issued u/s 148 was held to be not valid. The said judgment is at pages 33-38 of the paper book. Further, the ld. CIT(A) - 1, Agra, in the cases of 'Dr Smt. Namita Agarwal', Pages 39 to 42 of the paper book, has held that the ITO ward 1(3) had no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee and hence the notice issued u/s 147/148 by him was void-ab-initio and the assessment made subsequently suffered from a legal infirmity and could not be sustained. The issuance of notice u/s 147/148 by the AO who has no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee is not a curable defect. 10. Similarly in the case of 'Rohit Agarwal HUF', Pages 46 to 54 of the paper book, the ld. CIT -1, Agra has held that the ld. AR is justified in his argument that the AO has recorded his reasons to believe only on the basis of a piece of information and being guided by the report of ITO 4(1) forwarded by the JCIT, Range - 1, Agra, without consulting the assessment record, and hence, he did not form his independent opinion on the basis of material and evidence on....