TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause of non - fulfillment of mandatory jurisdictional conditions specified under the Act. 1.1 That orders passed by AO and CIT(Appeals) are bad in law, being based on invalid reasons which in turn are based on mere cash deposit without anything more. 1.2. That orders passed by AO and CIT(Appeals) are bad in law, because after return filing no valid notice u/s 143(2) is issued, as evident from Para - 3 of the impugned order. 1.3. That orders passed by AO and CIT(Appeals) are bad in law, because there is no valid exercise of jurisdiction by Assessing Officer who has passed the final order (ITO, Ward-2, Narnaul), as reasons are recorded by ITO, Ward-2, Rewari and notice u/s 148 is also issued by ITO, Ward-2, Rewari. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice u/s 148 of I. T. Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2007-08." Sd/- (O. P. Punia) Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Rewari." In response to notice u/s 148, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Again notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 17.08.2012 asking the assessee to file his return of income but no return was filed in compliance to this notice also and only power of attorney of the advocate was filed. Later on the jurisdiction of the case was assigned to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Narnaul by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Rewari Range, Rewari vide office order dated 04.02.2013. Notice u/s 142(1) calling the return of income along with query letter was issued for 15.02.2013 and in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that on identical i.e. exact wordings the reasons recorded in the present case has been dealt by the Tribunal in case of Krishan Kumar vs. ITO (ITA No. 3985/Del/2017 A.Y. 2007-08 dated 15.12.2017) wherein the appeal of the assessee is allowed as reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are held to be void. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that on the legal ground itself the appeal be allowed. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order as well as the order of the CIT(A), but could not distinguish the facts of the case decided by the Tribunal in case of Krishan Kumar (supra). 7. We have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....easons for the initiation of those proceedings seized to survive. Since, in the instant case, there was no addition made in the assessment order on account of which the assessment was reopened but some other additions have been made by the AO, therefore, the AO does not have jurisdiction to make such other additions in absence of any addition made for which the assessment was re-opened in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the re-assessment proceedings have to be quashed. 10. Even otherwise, also the reopening was made on the basis of AIR information received that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 19 lakhs. I find identical issue had come up befor....