TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment proceeding with old notice issued u/s. 148 and in making addition on the issue not forming part of the reason recorded u/s. 148(2) after holding that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment has as a matter of the fact not escaped assessment. 3) That learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 13,86,385/- made by the Assessing Officer for alleged undisclosed income from dealing in land situated at Borsi measuring 0.368 hectare (39611 Sq.ft.) bearing Khasra No. 369/3 and 370/3, Patwari Halka No. 19, RNM Durg-1, Tah. & Dist. Durg (C.G.) by ignoring submissions and evidences furnished by the appellant during the course of appellate proceeding and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case properly and judicially. 4) The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, or alter any ground or grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 2. On the basis of information received by the A.O that the assessee during the year under consideration had made an investment of Rs.45.60 lacs towards purchase of land, the A.O took recourse to proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 23.03.2015 was issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e a profit of Rs.13,86,385/- [Rs.55,45,540/- (-) Rs.41,59,155/-] i.e. the differential amount of the respective purchase and sale agreements. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act dated 25.03.2016 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.14,81,235/-. 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. 6. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O i.e. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai for framing of the impugned assessment u/ss. 143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that as A.O having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, i.e., ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai had framed the impugned assessment without issuing any notice u/s.148 of the Act, therefore, the assessment order so passed by him u/ss.143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016 could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down on the said count i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). It was also submitted by the Ld. AR that as the assessee had sold the land in question at a loss of Rs.5 lac, therefore, in absence of any profit no addition could have been made in his hands. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that the A.O had rightly assumed jurisdiction and brought to tax the income of the assessee that had escaped assessment vide his order passed u/ss. 143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016. It was the claim of the Ld. DR that the contentions advanced by the Ld. AR lacked any substance and both the lower authorities had rightly made/sustained the addition qua the profit that was earned by him on sale of the immovable property in question. 8. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 9. I have deliberated at length on the contentions advanced by the ld. autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fute the aforesaid factual position. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was vested with the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai. 11. Controversy involved in the present appeal in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix boils down to the solitary aspect, i.e., as to whether or not the assessment framed by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai vide order passed u/ss.143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016 on the basis of notice issued u/s.148 dated 23.03.2015 by the ITO, Ward1(1), Raipur i.e. a non jurisdictional A.O is sustainable in the eyes of law? 12. As observed by me hereinabove, the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee were initiated by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur vide notice u/s.148 dated 23.03.2015. Subsequently, the ITO, Ward- 1(1), Raipur had transferred the case record of the assessee on 12.05.2015 to ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai. The ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai had, thereafter, on the basis of notice u/s.148 dated 23.03.2015 (supra) proceeded with and framed the assessment vide his order u/ss.143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016. Ostensibly, the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, i.e., jurisdictional officer had not issued any notice u/s.148 of the Act bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act had no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee who was being assessed at Mumbai, therefore, the subsequent reopening notice that was issued by the A.O at Mumbai after the case of the assessee was transferred to his jurisdiction could not be held to be in continuation of the proceedings which were initiated by the A.O at Delhi. To sum up, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that if an A.O who had issued notice u/s.148 was not vested with jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, then, the subsequent notice issued by the jurisdictional A.O could neither be construed as a notice issued in continuation of the earlier proceedings, nor any valid assessment u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the Act could be framed on the basis of such notice issued by the non-jurisdictional A.O. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II Vs. Mohd. Rizwan, Prop. M/s. M.R Garments Moulviganj, Lucknow, ITA No. 100 of 2015 dated 30.03.2017. In the case before the Hon'ble High Court, notice u/s.148 was issued by the ITO-(IV)(1), Lucknow who at the relevant point of time had no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, as th....