TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, which proceedings have been initiated without satisfying the statutory preconditions as envisaged under section 147 of the Act, and hence initiation of the reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has grossly erred both in law and on facts that initiation of reassessment proceedings was without jurisdiction. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has grossly erred both in law and on facts in enhancing the income of the appellant to Rs. 3,50,000/- and bringing to tax the aforesaid sum u/s 25AA and 25B of the Act failing to appreciate that since computation of income under the head income from house property was not the issue before the learned AO as such, same being new source of income was beyond the subject matter of appeal and hence enhancement of income by the aforesaid sum is outside the scope of section 251 of the Act and as such, without jurisdiction. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to all these assesses were without valid jurisdiction. 6. In support, reliance was placed on the decisions in case of Ranjeet Singh vs ACIT 120 TTJ 517(Delhi), ACIT vs Smt. Chetna Kukreja in ITA No. 2141/Del/2009 dated 09.12.2010, ITO vs. Karan Sawhney in ITA No. 2098/Del/2009 order dated 07.08.2009 and CIT vs. Smt. Anjali Dua 219 CTR 183 (Del). 7. The ld. DR is heard who has vehemently argued the matter and relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the property which has been sold is situated at Dholpur, Rajasthan, at the same time, when the capital gain arising out of the sale of the said property is to be brought to the tax in the hands of the respective assessees, what has to be examined is whether the Assessing Officer issuing notice U/s 148 of the Act has the jurisdiction over the said assessees. The ld. AR has contended that at the relevant point in time when the notices were issued U/s 148, the jurisdiction over the assessees lie with Assessing officers at Delhi and Allahabad and not with the Assessing officer at Bharatpur. The Revenue ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... December, 2005, the time of six years had already elapsed. Therefore, he could not have issued further notice under s. 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment framed on the basis of notice issued without jurisdiction is bad in law and does not have legs to stand. The contention of Revenue that the proposal was routed through the file of the Addl. CIT is of no help when the AO including the learned CIT and Addl. CIT were not having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee on the date when the proposal was sent to the learned CIT, Ghaziabad. Another contention of the learned Departmental Representative is that the assessee cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the AO within the meaning of s. 120. Sec. 120 of the Act confers jurisdiction on IT authorities as per the procedure prescribed therein. Sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 120 do not automatically confer jurisdiction on territorial basis in respect of person already assessed to tax under the jurisdiction of other Chief CIT. The assessee was assessed in the charge of Chief CIT, Delhi. No orders were passed by the CBDT empowering the AO or the learned CIT to exercise jurisdiction over the assessee. The assessee has intimated the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mistake or defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings, if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings is in substance and effect in conformity with or in according to the intent and purpose of this Act. The notice issued by the ITO, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad, is not in substance and effect in conformity with the provisions of s. 120 r/w s. 147 of the Act. The notice was issued without jurisdiction. Therefore, the provisions of s. 292B will not be of any help to the Revenue. The provisions of s. 292B could have been invoked if the ITO, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad, was having jurisdiction over the assessee and some mistake was committed in the notice issued by him under s. 148. Therefore, we do not find any force in the argument of the learned Departmental Representative. 9. In view of the above facts, we are of the considered view that the notice issued by the AO, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad, was without jurisdiction and consequentially the assessment made is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. We order accordingly." 10. The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Smt. Anjali Dua (supra) also sup....