2014 (10) TMI 1000

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....., Ward 1(1), Bathinda on the basis of notice issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the A.O., Ward 3(4), Faridkot. ii. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the application of the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. iii. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the learned CIT(A) should have allowed the relief at Rs. 170851/- instead of Rs. 107851/- as there was typical mistake in the grounds of appeal made before the CIT(A), Bathinda. iv. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 70,332/- on account of the alleged under v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty under the Act. For the aforesaid assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the notices u/s 143(2) and 142 of the Act were issued by the ITO, Ward 1(1), Bathinda, himself not by the ITO, Faridkot. Then, how the A.O., Ward 1(1), Bathinda can say that the notice issued by the A.O., Faridkot is valid. If the PAN is lying there at Faridkot, then it is the duty of the A.O. to get the PAN transferred to Bathinda as the assessment is being framed by him year after year. Accordingly, the notice issued by the A.O., Faridkot for scrutiny is invalid and without the authority of law. Reliance is placed on Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Vs. CIT and another 220 ITR 446 (P&H). Further, as per the scheme of the Act, at a time only one A.O. can have jurisdiction ove....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7) Learned DR, on the other hand, at the outset, relied upon the decision of the learned CIT(A). He argued that informing the A.O. by the assessee does not tantamount to objection under Section 124(3)(a) of the Act, since there is no proper objection raised. The decisions relied upon by the learned AR are on different facts. Mr. Tarsem Lal, DR further argued that the assessee consciously did not take the legal objection in the proper form and accordingly prayed to confirm the order of learned CIT(A). 8) In the rejoinder, the learned AR argued that on 15.09.2009, the objection was raised before the A.O., Faridkot, which is a material on record in the order-sheet and the A.O., Faridkot, had sufficient time to transfer the record to the A.O....