TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Pr. CIT under sec. 127 for transfer of jurisdiction from the AC/DC to the ITO was never made available to the appellant despite a demand being made there for. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in appreciating the fact that a Notice under sec. 148(1) could have been issued only by the Officer holding jurisdiction over the Appellant's case and not by any other AO. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in appreciating the fact that jurisdiction over the Appellant's case lay with the AC/DC based on income returned for the AY in question as per Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31st January 2011 issued by the CBDT for being assessed and that they were binding on the Officers in the Department. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in appreciat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any other officer. 11. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the appellant was not duty bound to physically produce the party from whom it made purchases, but to only provide the address and bank details of the said party along with the VAT TIN Nos., which were last known to him." 3. At the time of hearing, ground No. 1,4,8 are not pressed by learned counsel of the appellant, hence, these are dismissed as not pressed. 3.1. In essence, the appellant has challenged the validity of the order on the ground that notice was issued by another officer (i.e. ACIT) while jurisdiction over the case was with ITO. Further, the reasons of reopening were recorded in haste, based on the report of the investigation wing without proper in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sferred to ITO Ward (1)(1) u/s. 127 of the I.T Act on 17/10/2017. The assessee's objection against reopening of assessment u/s. 148 filed vide letter dated 03/10/2017 were disposed off by the AO on 31/10/2017. (iv) Since notice u/s. 148 was issued after 4 years from the end of the assessment year, approval of competent authority was required to be taken which was sought on 29/03/2017. It is seen that the approval was granted after recording satisfaction in one line i.e. 'Yes, I am satisfied', on the same date. It was contended by the appellant that the notice was handed over to the postal authorities beyond 31/03/2017. However, as per copy of acknowledgement of the post office, the notice was received by postal authorities on 31/03....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso given to the appellant vide notice dated 27.03.2017 to furnish copy of ledger account alongwith supporting documents. (ii) The ACIT had received information regarding income escaping assessment of Rs.65,00,000/- and for the relevant year, returned income was Rs.53,77,300/- as such the notice issued u/s 148 was not without jurisdiction with regard to the threshold limits. (iii) The allegation that the approval of PCIT was given without due application of mind is again not based on any evidence but is merely a conjecture. Simply because the satisfaction has been recorded in one line at the fag end of the prescribed time limit., does not prove that there is no application of mind by the Pr.CIT or that the approval was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... credible information received from the Investigation Wing of the department which prima facie showed escapement of income. Reasons recorded were duly furnished to the appellant. Since the return of income u/s. 139(1) was filed at an income of Rs. 53,77,300/-. (well above the prescribed monetary limits) the ACIT had jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. Necessary approval has also been taken from the Competent authority. Subsequently, the case was transferred u/s. 127 of the I.T. Act from ACIT Circle 1(1), Mumbai to ITO Ward (1)(1), Mumbai. As such the grounds of appeal relating to reopening of assessment and the procedure followed are found to be without merit and hence rejected. ii) With regard to the issue o....