TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the presumption of the bank account belonging to the Appellant with a view to consider the cash deposits as the unexplained credit/income within the scope of section 68 of the Act consequently in the hands of the Appellant was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sustenance of the addition made in the hands of the Appellant was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 5. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in paras 6.7 & 6.8 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the contradictions and perversity in the findings of facts in the order of assessment pointed out by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings while maintaining the stand on the wrong approach in bringing to tax the cash deposited in to the said bank account as unexplained income/credit in the hands of the Appellant were completely overlooked and brushed aside, thereby vitiating th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it could not be visualized by the assessee even during the appeal proceedings before the learned CIT(A). However, these additional grounds are jurisdictional in nature and goes to route of the matter and further, facts relating to said additional grounds are very much available on record before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383, additional grounds filed by the assessee may be admitted. 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional grounds submitted that all along the assessee never challenged jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer either during the assessment proceedings or even before first appellate proceedings, however, for the first time, the assessee has taken legal grounds challenging jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, therefore, same cannot be admitted. The learned DR further submitted that as per provisions of section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer after expiry of one month from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d copies of order sheet entries from records of the Assessing Officer submitted that there is no dispute about issue of 148 notice by the non-jurisdiction Assessing Officer and further, it is also not in dispute that case has been transferred to jurisdiction Assessing Officer for the reason that jurisdiction vests with the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Puducherry. Further, there is no reference to transfer of case as required u/s.127 of the Act, nor notice issued u/s.129 of the Act for change of incumbent of an office. Therefore, in absence of such orders from the competent authority, notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Puducherry u/s.148 of the Act, is invalid and consequential assessment order passed u/s/.144 r.w.s. 147 is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. In this regard, the AR relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shirishbhai Hargovandas Sanjanwala Vs. ACIT (2017) 396 ITR 167 and also Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah vs. ACIT (2020) 425 ITR 70 and also had relied upon decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of PCIT Vs Nopany & Sons (2022) 286 taxman.com 388. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, referring to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9; of jurisdiction details of O/o. PCIT., Puducherry, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puducherry has jurisdiction over business assesses with name starting from alphabet "A,B,C,F, G & J", having returned income upto Rs.10 lakhs and corporate assessees name starting from alphabet 'A' to 'M' having returned income upto Rs.15 lakhs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, having jurisdiction over business assessees name starting with alphabet "H, I, K & M" having returned income upto Rs.10 lakhs and salary cases name starting from "A to M" having returned income upto Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore, as per the Board order, jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puducherry and the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Puducherry has been separately defined. Therefore, concerned A.O. can exercise their jurisdictional power over the assessees having names starting with alphabet mentioned against their jurisdiction. In this case, name of the assessee starts with alphabet 'M' and the assessee is a business assessee. Therefore, obviously jurisdiction over the assessee lies with the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Puducherry, but not with ITO., Ward-1(1), Puducherry. 10. In this case, admittedly, ITO., Ward-1(1), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer, who has no jurisdiction to assess the assessee was bad in law and further, it was not a mere irregularity or defect which could be cured. The relevant findings of the Hon'be High Court are as under:- "5. It can thus be seen that even the department agrees that normal assessment of the petitioner lies before circle 4(2), Ahmedabad whereas in the present case, impugned notice has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner of circle 5(2), Ahmedabad. This according to the department happened since in the sale deed, the petitioner was described as an agriculturist. As an agriculturist, having a particular residential address, his assessment would be made by the Assistant Commissioner, circle 5(2) and that is how the impugned notice came to be issued by the said officer. 6. The stand of the department ignores the fact that the petitioner is regularly assessed year after year and originally was within the jurisdiction of income-tax . circle-9. Now after restructuring, his assessment takes place before the Assistant Commissioner, circle 4(2), Ahmedabad. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Circle 5(2) had no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner. She could not have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r who had no authority in law to issue such notice. As a necessary corolla it follows that no proceedings could have been taken under section 147 in pursuance of such invalid notice. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned notice under section 148(1) as well as all the proceedings taken pursuant thereto cannot be sustained. The impugned notice issued under section 148, and all the proceedings pursuant thereto including the assessment order are, hereby, quashed and set aside." 13. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of ITAT., Lucknow Bench in the case of Mohd. Rizwan Vs. ITO (2015) 40 ITR(T) 153, where the Tribunal held that reassessment by jurisdictional Assessing Officer on the basis of notice issued by the ITO collecting AIR information, but having no jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. 14. A similar view had been expressed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Nopani & Sons (2022) 286 taxmann.com 388, where it has been clearly held that where case of the assessee was transferred from ITO, Ward-3 to ITO., Ward-4, impugned order u/s.143(3) was by ITO, Ward (4) without issuing notice u/s.143(2) and only in pursuance with notice issued by....