TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer. 4. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting the confirmation letter affidavit filed by Mr. Solo with Assessing Officer without examining Mr. Solo who had presented himself for this purpose. 5. That the addition of Rs. 66,50,000/- made u/s 68 by the Ld.AO on the basis of suspicion and surmises may kindly be deleted." [B]. Return of income was originally filed by the assessee on 30.10.2007 in the office of ITO, Ward-33(4), New Delhi. This return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "Act"]. On 31.03.2014, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi, for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act after recording reasons to believe, that income of the assessee had escaped the assessment. The jurisdiction of ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi to issue aforesaid notice dated 31.03.2014 u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was objected to by the assessee, contending that he had been filing his return of income with ITO, Ward-33(1), New Delhi. Therefore, the assessee contended before ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi that notice issued by ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi was not valid, as he did not have jurisdiction over the case. The objection of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice U/s 148, reopening his case for AY 2007-08. Such notice was sent by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(3). Copy of the notice is attached herewith. 4. The assessee filed his objection to such notice issued on 28.4.2014, on the ground that the same was issued without jurisdiction and was therefore invalid and non est. Copy of the objection filed is also submitted herewith. 5. The ITO, Ward 24(3), vide his letter Dt. 1.8.2014, conveyed his non-acceptance of the assessee's contention of incorrect jurisdiction. Copy of such letter is attached. CONTENTIONS: 1. For the past many years, the assessee has regularly been assessed in Ward 33(1) which includes Karol Bagh, where he carries on his business. Tins is also In accordance with Section 124(1)(a) which provides that in respect of persons carrying on business or profession, an assessing officer will exercise jurisdiction 'if 'the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situate within the area..'. Thus in accordance with the law, the jurisdiction of the assessee lies with Ward 33(1). 2. The Ld. ITO has supported his jurisdiction over the assessee by basing his decision on Section 124(l)(b). How....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ward 24(3). New Delhi. 2. On receipt of the said notice 1 appeared before ITO Ward 24 (3) and informed him that the jurisdiction over my case was with ITO Ward 33(1) / (4). Consequentially, the notice u/s 148 and consequential proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction. I reiterate the same. 3. I have now received notice u/s 142(1) dt. 30.10.2014 calling for return of income for A.Y. 2007-08. It is submitted that no valid notice u/s 142(1) calling for return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 can now be issued. The first para of the notice has not been struck off. The impugned notice u/s 142(1) is illegal also because it has been issued in pursuance of an invalid notice u/s 148 issued by Income-tax Officer ward 24(3), who never held jurisdiction over my case. 4. As per para 3 of the impugned notice, I submit that no annexure is not endow! with the notice u/s 142(1). It may kindly be noted that the notice u/s 142(1.) does not specify any document to be produced by me. 5. Without prejudice to our main submissions questioning the jurisdiction and legality of the present proceedings, we, in the spirit of cooperation, submit the following documents for the year ending 31.3.2007:-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jections raised. After restructuring, the case was transferred to the concerned AO of Range-51, New Delhi. The copies of reasons recorded were also provided to the appellant. In view of above discussion, I find that there was no procedural lapses with regard to reopening the case, therefore, the appeal on these grounds is dismissed." [B.4]. Ld.CIT(A) also rejected the grounds taken by the assessee on the merits of the aforesaid addition of Rs. 66,50,000/-. Eventually, vide the aforesaid appellate order dated 20.10.2016, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved again, the assessee has filed this present appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "ITAT"). [C]. In the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal, the first two grounds are against assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer, u/s 147 of the Act vide aforesaid notice dated 31.03.2014 issued u/s 148 of the Act. The remaining three grounds in the present appeal before us in ITAT are on the merits of the aforesaid addition amounting to Rs. 66,50,000/-. In the course of the appellate proceedings in ITAT, following papers were filed from the assessee's side:- 1. Income t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y. 2001-02 2. Assessment Order for A.Y. 2006-07 3 Letter dt. 28.06.2016 filed with CIT(A), assessee wiling to produce Mr. Solo for examination. 4. Notification regarding New Jurisdiction of Income- tax in Delhi w.e.f. 15.11.2014. 5. Rohtak & Hissar District Electricity Supply Co. v. CIT 128 ITR 52(Del)[HCl [C.1]. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the jurisdiction over the assessee vested in ITO, Ward-33(4), New Delhi at the time when [on 31.03.2014] the aforesaid ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi issued the aforesaid notice dated 31.03.2014 under section 148 of the Act for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. He further contended that original return was filed by the assessee on 30.10.2007 with the aforesaid ITO, Ward-33(4), New Delhi; and, that on 30.10.2007 the return was also processed in the jurisdiction of ITO, Ward-33(4), New Delhi, u/s 143(1) of the Act. He further contended that no valid order by any Competent Authority was in existence on 31.03.2014 transferring the jurisdiction of the assessee from ITO, Ward-33(4), New Delhi to ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi. In view of these facts, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted, that ITO, Ward-24(3....