2019 (7) TMI 1940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... justice. 2. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated and held that AO has erred in not issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the At which is mandatory for completing the assessment under the provisions of Act. 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated and held that the AO erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 without there being any new tangible material before him. 4. The learned CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the ground raised on the order passed by AO, that as the AO has made an addition u/s 50C amounting to Rs.38,13,750/- with referring the issue for valuation by DVO. 5. The learned CIT (A) ought to have held the fact that the assessee has filed his return of income for the year under c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the AO who has exercised the jurisdiction over the assessee is not the AO who has jurisdiction over him. He submitted that the Officer not having jurisdiction over him cannot issue and complete the assessment and that though the assessee has raised a ground of appeal before the CIT (A) on this issue, the CIT (A) has failed to adjudicate the said ground of appeal. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Lucknow in the case of Mohd. Rizwan vs. ITO (2015) 65 Taxmann.com 160 (Lucknow.Trib). Therefore, according to him, the assessment itself is invalid and has to be set aside accordingly. 4. The learned DR was also heard, who supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was served by affixture on 14.10.2016 on the address of the property which was sold in financial year 2008-09. Obviously, the assessee would not be residing in the property he has already sold even after 8 years of sale. The AO, who received the AIR information ought to have verified the correct address of the assessee from the return of income filed by the assessee or the address available in the PAN Card. But he proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte the assessee. Since the notice u/s 148 was not served on the assessee, the assessee did not have the opportunity to object to the same before the AO and therefore, has raised it before the CIT (A) for the first time. Since, the exercise of jurisdiction is a legal issue and if it is not....