TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he return filed earlier may be treated as return filed u/s!48. Further, he has not challenged/objected to the AO's jurisdiction, as the provisions of section 292BB of the I.T. Act, before the completion of assessment. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that an order u/s!27 was passed after completion of the assessment by the CIT, Haldwani transferring the jurisdiction of CIT-II, Lucknow. This clearly shows that till such order jurisdiction was with ITO, Kashipur. GROUNDS IN I.T.A. No. 757/LKW/2011: 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case and failed to appreciate that the return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 was e-filed. The assessee's representative complied with the notice u/s 148 an [asked, for the reasons and on the subsequent date of hearing he has stated that the return filed earlier may be treated as return filed u/s!48. Further he has not challenged/objected to the AO's jurisdiction, as per the provisions of section 292BB of the I.T. Act, 1961 before the completion of assessment. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that an order u/s 127 was passed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Ld. A. O. erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.514595-00 as Peak Cash Deposits in Bank, inspite of the fact, the deposits were made out of the withdrawals and funds received from Contract Work. 5. The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-II, LKO. did not appreciated that Ld. A. O. did not appreciated that there was a reasonable cause for not making the proper compliance, as appellant is residing at Lucknow and his C.A. had not giving correct legal advice and information about the case. 3. In both the appeals, the issue is almost common; therefore, we deal with the facts involved in I.T.A. No. 756/LKW/2011. 4. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short "the Act") by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer-III, Kashipur. The said notice was served by affixture at the address of the assessee at Kashipur and the assessment was completed under section 147/144 of the Act. 5. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee has took a plea that the Income Tax Officer-III, Kashipur has no jurisdictio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 143(1) of the Act by the Income Tax Officer-IV(3), Lucknow. The Income Tax Officer-III, Kashipur has issued notice under section 148 of the Act on the basis of the return incorrectly filed with him by the assessee, but before issuing notice to the assessee, the Assessing Officer should have verified from the PAN whether he has jurisdiction over the assessee, and if it I found that the return is not filed with the concerned Assessing Officer, the return filed with him should have been forwarded to the concerned Assessing Officer. Otherwise, the return filed with him cannot be called to be a valid return and is non est in law. In any case, the Assessing Officer- III, Kashipur has no jurisdiction over the assessee to issue notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Since the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is to be held invalid, the assessment framed consequent thereto cannot be held to be valid and deserves to be annulled. 9. We have carefully examined the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we find that the ld. CIT(A) has elaborated all the relevant facts in his order and in the light of various judicial pronouncements, he h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iction of the assessee lies with Range -IV, Lucknow (Range- VI, Lucknow post change of jurisdiction). However, the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued and served by affixture at Kashipur by the Income Tax Officer-3, Kashipur. Before, I examine the legality of assessment completed by the Income Tax Officer-3, Kashipur, it is imperative to examine the status of return of income for the impugned assessment year 2007-2008 which was filed by the appellant on 24.03.2008 at Kashipur showing total income of Rs. 1,46,810/-. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Industrial Trust Vs CIT (1973) 91 ITR 550 (SC) held that a return filed before an officer who held no jurisdiction over assessee is a non-est return. Accordingly, the return of income filed by the assessee at Kashipur was itself without jurisdiction and was a non-est return in the eyes of Law. In other words, the said non-est return of income filed by the assessee at Kashipur for the impugned assessment year 2007-2008 did not provide a valid jurisdiction to the ITO-3, Kashipur to act on the said return. The ITO-3, Kashipur did not get the jurisdiction to act on the said return of income in absence of an order under se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. As discussed above, protection of the proceedings and assessment thereafter on account of failure of the assessee to object within the time allowed Under Section 124(3) is available to specific proceeding and not to every proceedings. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction cannot, in general, be validated. Such validation is specific in Section 124(3). Secondly, principles of estoppel are not applicable to Income tax proceedings. What may be acceptable or held in one year or in one proceeding cannot be in general held to be applicable to other proceedings. It is held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Anant Mills Ltd. v. CIT (Supra) that estoppel is not applicable to successive assessments. In any case, estoppel cannot be made applicable to assumption of jurisdiction. It has to be specifically provided in the statute. We, therefore, do not find any force in the arguments in this regard submitted by the Learned D.R. The same are, therefore, rejected. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, in our considered view they arc merely academic as reassessment is cancelled as having been initialed without jurisdiction. 29. As a result, we hold that the issuance of notice U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner that the earlier officer continues to retain jurisdiction to made assessments even after transfer of raid files to another officer has no merit-Two AOs cannot retain concurrent jurisdiction over the same assessee in any case." 4(6) The cases of the appellant for the earlier Assessment Years have been completed by AO having jurisdiction at Lucknow. The impugned assessment for Assessment Year 2007 -2008 has been completed by ITO-3, Kashipur without jurisdiction. I therefore find that the ITO-3, Kashipur has, completed the assessment in the case of the appellant even though the jurisdiction vested with AO at Lucknow. The ITO-3, Kashipur had no jurisdiction to either issue any notice under section 148 of the Act to the appellant or complete the assessment framed by him under section 144 of the Act in pursuance of notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessment framed without jurisdiction is void-ab-initio. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Courts supra, I annul the assessment framed by the ITO-3, Kashipur as the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction. The grounds of appeal are allowed." 10. Since we do not find any in....