AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. Assessing Officer {'Ld. AD ,}, inter alia, because: 1.1. The re-assessment proceedings were without jurisdiction, there being, undisputedly, no service of notice u/s 148 of the Act on the appellant. 1.2. That a mere opportunity to inspect the assessment record provided by the Ld. AO to the counsel of the appellant does not meet the requirements of section 148 in so far as a valid service of notice is concerned. 1.3. That in the absence of any service of notice u/s 148 there was no jurisdiction with the Ld. AO to initiate, proceed with and complete re-assessment proceedings. 3. That without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding that the Ld. AO at Dehradun had the jurisdiction to make a reassessment u/s 147 of the Act inter alia because: 2.1. It is an undisputed fact that the jurisdictional AO i.e. ACIT International Taxation, Dehradun never issued any notice u/s 148, leave alone the fact whether or not any notice was ever served on the Appellant. 2.2. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to make a reassessment is the issue and service on the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortunity to inspect the assessment record provided by the Ld. AO to the counsel of the appellant does not meet the requirements of section 148 in so far as a valid service of notice is concerned. 2.3. That in the absence of any service of notice u/s 148 there was no jurisdiction with the Ld. AO to initiate, proceed with and complete re-assessment proceedings. 3. That without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding that the Ld. AO at Dehradun had the jurisdiction to make a reassessment u/s 147 of the Act inter alia because: 3.1. It is an undisputed fact that the jurisdictional AO i.e. ACIT International Taxation, Dehradun never issued any notice u/s 148, leave alone the fact whether or not any notice was ever served on the Appellant. 3.2. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to make a reassessment is the issue and service on the assessee of a valid notice u/s 148 read with section 147 and in the present case the alleged notice dated 28.3.12 issued u/s 148 by ITO 16(2) Mumbai does not satisfy the test of valid issuance of a notice by jurisdictional AO. 3.3. The ITO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary in the hands of assessee on which he has paid an amount of Rs. 5,68,259/- as income-tax. So, after making payment of Rs. 5,68,259/-, an amount of Rs. 5,94,641/- was left with the assessee during AY 2005-06 to meet with its household and other expenses whereas he has paid an amount of Rs. 8,22,213/- as school fee during the year. On failure of the assessee to bring on record, the evidence for availability of funds, addition of Rs. 8,22,213/- is made u/s 68 of the Act for AY 2005-06. 3. Similarly, assessee's return of income of Rs. 17,79,500/- for AY 2006-07 was filed by non-resident company out of which amount of Rs. 4,62,000/- was offered as prerequisites and on the remaining amount of Rs. 13,17,500/-, assessee paid tax of Rs. 5,42,880/- as income-tax and has left with an amount of Rs. 7,74,620/-. However, the assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 33,63,559/- as school fee. AO proceeded to conclude that it is most unlikely that the assessee has funds to make this investment for which no evidence has been brought on record and consequently addition of Rs. 33,63,559/- is made u/s 68 of the Act for AY 2006-07. 4. Assessee carried the matter by way of appeals before the ld. CIT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued the notice dated 05.03.2013 u/s 142 (1) which was served upon M/s. Hemant Arora and company, counsel of HHI. 9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by ld. Revenue authorities below, arguments advanced by ld. AR for the parties, the sole question arises for determination in this case is :- "as to whether a valid notice was issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07?" 10. The ld. AR for the assessee brought on record vide Notification No.9579 dated 05.08.1994 conferring jurisdiction in respect of foreign companies and employees of non-resident companies which is extracted for ready perusal as under :- "SECTION 120 In exercise of the powers conferred under section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and of all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Central Board of Direct Taxes makes the following amendment to its Notification No. 6587 (F. No. 187/1/86-ITA-I) dt. 6th February, 1986 : The officers mentioned in Cols. 3, 4 and 5 shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of persons as specified in Col. 2 against SI. Nos. 1 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee who has further handed over the same to Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., employer of the assessee on 12.11.2012 who has intimated on 03.12.2012 to ITO, Mumbai that assessee was on deputation with HHI, Mumbai as liaison officer from 2004 to December 2007, thus permanently left India. Thereafter, ADIT, International Taxation, Dehradun (AO) issued the notice dated 05.03.2013 u/s 142 (1) which was served upon the assessee. 14. Despite the fact that the AO has been duly intimated by the counsel for assessee that serve of notice u/s 148 of the Act has never been effected on the assessee, the AO proceeded to pass the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act. Furthermore, no order u/s 127 of the Act was passed to transfer the case from Mumbai to Dehradun. Rather on the basis of intimation given by the landlord of the assessee, AO suo motu transferred the file to AO, Dehradun who has no power. When it is undisputed fact on record that notice u/s 148 was issued which was though not served upon the assessee by the ITO, Mumbai and assessment has been completed by ITO, Dehradun without passing order by the higher revenue authorities u/s 127 of the Act, assessment orders are not sustainab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can assess or reassess any escaped income of an assessee under section 147 - Held, yes - Whether since Assessing Officer at Agra not being Assessing Officer qua assessee, as above, he could not have assessed or reassessed any escaped income of assessee for year under consideration under section 147 and he could not have served assessee with a notice under section 148 for year under consideration and, hence, impugned order could not be found fault with at all - Held, yes Section 29288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances - Assessment year 2001-02 - Whether section 292BB does not cure jurisdictional defect in notice - Held, yes - Whether section 292BB is applicable with effect from 1- 4-2008 and it does not apply to year under consideration, i.e., assessment year 2001-02 - Held, yes - Whether section 292BB does not lay down that even where a notice is void ab initio for want of jurisdiction, such a notice shall still be deemed to have been duly served on an assessee in accordance with provisions of Act - Held, yes" 19. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case cited as CIT vs. Smt. Anjali Dua - (2008) 174 taxman 72 (Delhi) also ....