AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"). While so, after a period of five years, she received a notice dated 28.03.2018 issued by the first respondent under Section 148 of the Act purportedly to re-assess the income of return submitted by her for the assessment year 2011-2012. In response, she submitted a reply dated 26.04.2018 stating that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such a notice under Section 148 of the Act and therefore, she requested to drop the reassessment proceedings. Subsequently, the first respondent transferred the files pertaining to the appellant to the second respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent continued the reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice dated 14.12.2018 under section 143(2) r/w 129 of the Act, directing the appellant to appear and file return of income to the notice under section 148 of the Act along with supportive documents. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred WP.No.34136 of 2018 to quash both the notices dated 28.03.2018 and 14.12.2018 issued by the respective respondents 1 and 2. 3. It was contended by the respondents before the writ court that the appellant had received a sum of Rs.53,50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, the reassessment proceedings ought not to have been initiated by the first respondent against the appellant. 5.2. Adding further, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that when the reassessment proceedings initiated by the first respondent itself is invalid, the second respondent without issuing notice afresh under section 148 of the Act, cannot be permitted to continue the further proceedings by issuing notice dated 14.12.2018 invoking Section 129 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, even assuming that the reassessment proceedings are valid, as per Section 149 (b) of the Act, the second respondent cannot issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is also submitted that the limitation period for initiation of reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2011-12 came to an end on 31.03.2018; the second respondent, who is the jurisdictional assessing officer, did not issue any notice under Section 148 of the Act, before 31.03.2018 to reopen the return of income declared by the appellant; and therefore, the second respondent cannot ride upon the borrowed satisfaction of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es not require any interference at the hands of this court. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. The subject matter of challenge before the writ court was the notice dated 28.03.2018 issued by the first respondent under section 148 of the Act and the consequential notice dated 14.12.2018 issued by the second respondent under section 143(2) r/w 129 of the Act, for the assessment year 2011-12. The learned Judge decided the same against the appellant / writ petitioner. 9. In this writ appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant made elaborate contentions both on legal and factual aspects. Firstly, in law, it is submitted that the first respondent lacks jurisdiction to issue reassessment notice under section 148 of the Act; when the same was pointed out by the appellant, the first respondent transferred the entire files to the jurisdictional assessing officer / second respondent, who inturn, continued the reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under section 143(2) r/w 129 of the Act, without issuing any fresh notice under section 148 of the Act; and hence, the notices so issued by the respective respondents are invalid and the same vitiate the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to be a valid notice: Provided further that in a case - (a)Where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005, in response to a notice served under this section, and (b)subsequently a notice has been served under clause (ii) of sub section (2) of section 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143, but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice.] [Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the second proviso shall apply to any return which has been furnished on or after the 1st day of October, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section.] (2)The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so." "Change of incumbent of an office: 129.Whenever in respect of any proceeding under this Act an income-tax auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proposal. Consequently, the files pertaining to the reassessment of the appellant were transmitted to the second respondent. Thereafter, without issuing any fresh notice under section 148 of the Act, the second respondent / jurisdictional assessing officer continued the reassessment proceedings initiated by the first respondent, who lacks jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act, and sent a notice dated 14.12.2018 under section 143(2) r/w section 129 of the Act to the appellant, calling upon her to appear either in person or through an authorised representative and produce the documents in support of the return of income filed by her. Thus, both the notices issued by the respondents 1 and 2 respectively were challenged by the appellant. 13. Reference was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to the following decisions: (i)Shibani Dutta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [(2012) 26 taxmann.com 105 (Delhi), in which, it was held as under: "10....The period of limitation gets extended under clause (iii) of Explanation I only by the time taken to reopen the whole or any part of the proceeding or giving an opportunity to the assessee (to be reheard) under the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 of 2015 dated 30.03.2017], in which, it was held as under: "34.Section 148 clearly talks of issue of notice by A.O. Meaning thereby, A.O. having jurisdiction over Assessee. In fact, it is his satisfaction which is to be recorded for justifying reopening of assessment / reassessment proceedings as contemplated under section 147 and recording of reasons for the same purpose is mandatory. The satisfaction of A.O. could not have been hired or be delegated to any other authority." "43.The reason for issuance of notice by Competent A.O. is quite obvious inasmuch as such notice could have been issued only when concerned A.O. has reason to believe that some income has escaped assessment and recomputation / reassessment is needed. Now such satisfaction can be of that A.O. only who has jurisdiction in the matter and not of any third party. 44.We, therefore, hold that in the present case, no valid notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional A.O before making assessment / reassessment and, therefore, proceedings of reassessment pursuant to notice issued under section 148 by an incompetent officer are void and ab initio." (iv)Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah v. Assistant Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r recording the reasons to believe that some of the income of the appellant has escaped assessment, this court is of the opinion that the notice dated 28.03.2018 issued by the first respondent under section 148 of the Act, without jurisdiction, lacks legal sanctity and hence, the same is held to be invalid. As a sequitur, the continuation of the reassessment proceedings by the second respondent, who is the jurisdictional assessing officer, without issuing any fresh notice as contemplated under section 148, but issuing notice dated 14.12.2018 under section 143(2) r/w 129 of the Act, which applies only for change in incumbent within the same jurisdiction, is also held to be invalid. 15. Pertinently, it is to be pointed out at this stage that "if an order is passed by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority having no jurisdiction, it is an obligation of Appellate Court to rectify the error and set aside the order passed by the authority or forum having no jurisdiction" [Refer: State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot and another, AIR 1996 SC 2664]. Therefore, the notice issued by the first respondent under section 148 as well as the consequential notice issued by the second re....