TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer as well as the Appeal Commissioner should have considered the exemption U/s 54 of IT Act, towards purchase of another house/flat at Life Style Green, PATIA, BBSR. (Detail of documents filed in the Court/Forum below are enclosed herewith.) 2. For that relating to source of cash deposits of Rs- 29,20,000 in the Appellants Bank A/c should not have been rejected both by the Assessing Officer and by the Appeal Commissioner. The confirmation of cash deposits of Rs-10,50,000 ( out of 25Lakhs cash deposits ) should not have been rejected by the Appeal Commissioner (Reference internal page-7 of Appeal Commissioners Order Dt-27.02.2017) indicating the same constituted to be additional evidence, even though the Appellant had no scope to file the same at the Assessment stage. Towards the source of balance cash deposits of Rs. 420,000 (Rs. 29,20,000-Rs. 25,00,000) both the forums below should have accepted the same to be out of Appellants past savings including sale of old furniture of pervious flat etc. 3. For that both the Assessing Officer and the Appeal Commissioner should not have added the Non Cash Deposits of Rs- 5,64,945 in Appellants Bank as Unexplained Income even though....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich are already on record. It is submitted that the additional ground be admitted and disposed of the same on merits. 6. Replying to above, ld Sr. DR opposed to the admission of additional and further submitted that the assessee had all the opportunities to raise this grievance before the Assessing Officer and before the CIT(A) but he has bypassed these forums and approach the Tribunal directly. It is submitted that while Tribunal may indeed have powers to admit an additional ground of appeal, but there have to be good reasons for assessee not raising such a grievance before the first appellate authority. 7. After hearing the rival submissions, I am inclined to admit the additional ground of appeal since, as assessee rightly contends, it is a pure question of law challenging the very assumption of jurisdiction to pass impugned order which goes to the root of the case and merely because the assessee did not raise this grievance earlier the assessee cannot be prevented from raising this grievance now. In view of these facts, and in view if the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in NTPC's case (supra), I admit the additional grounds of appeal and proceed to deal with the same. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee, thus the notice is invalid and, therefore, assessment is invalid and bad in law. For this proposition, he relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) ITO vs Om Prakash Kukerja, (2016) 178 TTJ (Chd)1 ii) Suresh Kumar Sheetlani vs ITO (2018) 257 Taxman 338 (All) iii) Mrs Shubhashri Panicker vs CIT, 403 ITR 434 (Raj) iv) Harjeet Eurajprakash Girotra vs UOI & Ors (2019) 311 CTR 287 v) CIT vs Eshaan Holding Pvt ltd., 344 ITR 541 (Del) 10. Replying to above, ld Sr DR submitted that notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee in the address available in the assessee's PAN date base i.e. Puspanjali Mishra, D/O Balakrishna Mishra, C-004, R B Palace, Bomikhal, Near Ekamra Cinema Hall, Bhubaneswar, Orissa-751010. He submitted that a notice u/s.142(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 dated 15.4.2014 was issued to the assessee in the address provided by the assessee in her ITR i.e. Ms Puspanjali Mishra, Flat No.201, Basudev Enclave, Kanan Vihar, Swarnapuri, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024. Subsequent notices u/s.142(1) were issued to the assessee on 14.10.2014 and 30.12.2014. Ld DR referred to the copy of order sheet and letter of the assessee at page 10 t0 16 (filed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enged got quashed the order of assessment. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Rajastahan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivratan Soni, 279 ITR 261 (Raj). Ld A.R. also referred to the decision of Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs K.G.Madan, 275 ITR 294 (P&H), wherein, it was held that reassessment notice issued u./s.148 of the Act but reasons were recorded after issue of notice, hence, the reassessment is invalid. Therefore, it is mandatory requirement of the Act that the AO must record reasons stating escapement of income by the assessee for relevant assessment year for assumption of valid jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings and to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act. 13. In reply to submission of ld D.R. that the jurisdiction was not challenged by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and now challenged before the Tribunal as an additional ground, ld A.R. submitted that the point of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and any point of time and even before the authority and with jurisdiction, the order is a nullity and its invalidity can be agitated even at the point of execution and collateral proceedings. He submitted that the revenue has filed affid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 148. The Assessing Officer can't just change his mind and go for re-investigation without a valid reason. In case the assessee has disclosed all the documents and correct information during the original assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot send a notice to the assessee for reassessing the same documents. Some facts or new documents which show that the income has escaped assessment should come into the light. In case the new information or documents come to light indicating that the individual has concealed income, then the AO could take action against such assessee under section 147 and 148. 17. The contention of ld A.R. is that no reasons were recorded before issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. The Bench specifically asked ld D.R. to furnish the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. Ld DR produced the order sheet starting from 6.12.2013 to 9.6.1017 but no where it is mentioned that the reasons are recorded . Ld D.R., in all fairness, submitted that on perusal of entire reassessment proceedings file/folder, he is unable to find any copy of the reasons recorded by the AO prior or after issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 6.12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y itself bestow jurisdiction as the AO. Such an objection can be taken in appeal also. Moreover, the apex Court in its recent decision in Kanwar Singh Saini v High Court of Delhi, 2012 (4) SCC 307 has held that it settled position that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and cannot be conferred by consent of petitioner. An issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time even in appeal or execution. " 20. Recording of reasons before issue of notice is mandatory hence Reassessment was held to be bad in law as held in CIT v. Blue Star Ltd, 301 CTR 38 (Bom) (HC). 21. In Prashanth Projects Ltd v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 368 , (Bom) (HC), It was held that before the Tribunal the question of supply of reasons recorded by the AO was raised by the assessee and it went to the root of the matter. On this issue, the Bench directed the Departmental Representative to produce the records to verify as to whether the reasons were recorded by the AO and whether same were supplied to the assessee. The AO appeared with the assessment records but the relevant records were not traceable or were not available. It was found that even after completion of the assessment/appellate proceeding....