TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iction 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 appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has not issued the reasons for re-opening wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 independent inquiry. He has also challenged the approval of PCIT on the ground that the same has been given in a mechanical mann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 31/03/2017 (as agent of the appellant). (v) In response to the notice, appellant filed a letter on 25/04/2017 to treat the return filed earlier as return filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment 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 obtained in time. (iv) The appellant has also objected to the passing of order by the ITO in violation of monetary limits prescribed in Instruction No.6/2011 dated 08/04/2011 by the CBDT vide F.No.187/12/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome 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 of treating the transaction of Rs. 65,00,000/- as bogus and calculating net profit @30% of disputed purchases, it is seen that the notice u/s. 133(6) issued on 14/11/2017 to M/s. Prerna Inc at the address provided by the assessee company was ret....