TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 714
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the 'Act'). 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that common ground taken in both the appeals is relating to the validity of reopening of the assessment u/s. 148 of the Act. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that since this legal ground taken by the assessee is relevant in both the cases and if the same is decided in favour of the assessee then the validity of the additions made on merits will be rendered academic in nature. He, therefore, has submitted that the common issue relating to the validity of the reopening of the assessment may be heard first. 4. The ld. DR has not objected to the same. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset has brought my attention to the fact that in this cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer who has framed the assessment has not issued any notice u/s. 148 of the Act to the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in this case, has framed the reassessment order on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of an Officer who did not have the jurisdiction even to issue notice. The Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee has not himself formed belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The ld. Counsel has further invited my attention to the reasons recorded for forming belief of escapement of assessment by ACIT, Circle-2, relevant which part for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: "As per the information available on record, during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to the A.Y. u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l has submitted despite the above fact brought into the knowledge of the ACIT, Circle-2, he did not close the matter rather transferred the same for framing of reassessment order to ITO, Ward-2(2). 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that the ACIT, Circle-2 otherwise had jurisdiction over the area where the assessee resided, however, the matter was transferred to the ITO, Ward-2(2) because of pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter. The ACIT exercises his jurisdiction when the income returned/assessed is more than the prescribed limit for certain area otherwise for which the jurisdiction as exercised by ITO. The second contention raised by the ld. DR is that even the assessee did not raise objection within 30 days regarding the ....