TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 961
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned appellate order') is erroneous, arbitrary, without jurisdictional, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition made by Income Tax officer, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. AO" or "Jurisdictional AO") u/s 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act in case of the Appellant amounting to Rs. 12,50,000/-on account of cash deposit made during the impugned financial year being treated as unexplained money. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is in violation to the principles of natural Justice. The Ld. AO passed the order in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was insufficient and could not be cogent material to assume a valid jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of IT Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming Ld. AO's order making additions amounting to Rs. 12,50,000/- which was passed solely relying upon information (AIR) about cash deposits made by the appellant and not bringing any evidence contrary to documents on record. 8. The satisfaction recorded by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Range 69, Delhi dated 29.03.2018 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Delhi-23 dated 30.03.2018 is mechanical and without application of mind and such approval vitiates the assessment. Such mechanical sanction cannot be considered as sanction satisfying the mandatory re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unexplained money is not tenable, illegal, unwarranted and uncalled for. 13. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)." 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, referring to ground no.5 of grounds of appeal submits that there is no valid assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of assessment and, therefore, the reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer who is having jurisdiction over the assessee is bad in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2018 issued by the ITO, Ward 69(1), New Delhi is bad in law and without jurisdiction in as much as there was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge 7 of Paper Book it is observed that notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2018 was issued by ITO, Ward 69(1), Delhi for reopening of assessment of the assessee. Later on the case was transferred to the ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon, by way of letter dated 12.11.2018 by ITO, Ward 69(1), New Delhi for completion of reassessment. It is very much clear that at the time of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act by ITO, Ward 69(1), New Delhi he has no jurisdiction over the assessee as the jurisdiction over the assessee was vested with ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon, therefore, it can be safely concluded that the assumption of jurisdiction by ITO, Ward 69(1), New Delhi for reopening of assessment by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law. There is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....148 and 142(1) of the Act and completed the reassessment order who was having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee did not record reasons for the reopening of the assessment. Therefore, initiations of reassessment proceedings are illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed. In support of which contention he has relied upon order of ITAT Agra Bench in the case of S.N. Bhargawa Vs. ITO 147 ITD 306 in which it was held us under: "IT: Where Assessing Officer, Agra initiated reassessment proceedings against assessee anal subsequently he transferred case to Assessing Officer, Mathura, who was having jurisdiction over assessee, and thereupon Assessing Officer, Mathura, without recording fresh reasons and on the basis of reasons recorded b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d jurisdiction in the matter or to validly initiate the reassessment proceedings against the assessee. It is not a case of succession to exercise jurisdiction by one ITO to another ITO. Since, reasons have been recorded for reopening of the assessment by ITO, Noida who was not authorized to do so, therefore, mere recording of reasons for reopening of the assessment by him is of no consequence and has no value under the law. The AO who has jurisdiction over the case of assessee i.e. ITO, Faridabad admittedly did not record any reasons for reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of ITAT Agra Bench in the case of S N Bhargawa (supra). It is, therefore, clear that assumption of jurisdictio....