TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2007-08 on the grounds inter alia that :- "1. Ground No. 1 - Re: Re-assessment without issuing Notice u/s. 148: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Mumbai [hereafter referred as the 'CIT(A)'] erred in upholding the action of the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(l), Mumbai [hereafter referred as the 'A.O'] in assuming jurisdiction to re-assess income of the appellant-assessee without issuing and serving on the appellant-assessee valid notice u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') consequently passing the impugned assessment order dated 26.03.2015. 2. Ground N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, the assessment was reopened by invoking the provisions under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act on the basis of AIR information that the assessee trust has sold properties for Rs. 62,56,000/-, Rs. 72,77,000/- and Rs. 68,75,000/- on 01.02.2007, 03.02.2007 and 25.07.2006 respectively as the transactions remained unexplained, assessment was reopened and sale proceeds of Rs. 2,04,08,000/- reasoned to be believed as chargeable to tax having escaped assessment for A.Y. 2007-08. 3. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of Rs. 2,04,08,000/-. The AO also denied the exemption/deduction claimed by the assessee under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee?" 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto. 8. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned order passed by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) framing/confirming the assessment under section 148 of the Act contended interalia that assessment framed in this case is liable to be quashed as ITO, Bareli who has initiated the reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Act was having no jurisdiction under section 120/124 of the Act nor any transfer of jurisdiction order was ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs. 2,04,08,000/- has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2007- 2008" 11. When it is undisputed fact that jurisdictional AO of the assessee trust is ACIT (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai and jurisdiction has never been changed or transferred to ITO, Bareli, the very initiation of reopening by ITO, Bareli under section 147/148 of the Act is bad in law. Because under section 120 & 124 of the Act only ACIT (Exemption), Mumbai is the AO of the assessee trust empowered to frame the assessment, which has never been changed or transferred to ITO, Bareli under section 127 of the Act. 12. It is settled principle of law that when the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by a non jurisdictional AO, t....