TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. That the order u/s 263 by the Ld. PCIT is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the Ld. PCIT has failed to consider the replies furnished in response to notice issued u/s 263. 3. That the order u/s 263 passed by the PCIT is illegal and bad in law since the very assessment order passed u/s 147 is without jurisdiction. That the order passes u/s 147 is bad in law as the same has been completed on the basis of unsigned reasons recorded. 4. That the order u/s 263 passed by the PCIT is illegal and bad in law since the very assessment order passed u/s 147 is without jurisdiction. That the order passes u/s 147 is bad in law since, it is framed by considering alleged material found during search as mentioned in para 2 of order u/s 263 and the proper course of action if any was u/s 153C and not 147. 5. That the order passed u/s 263 is bad in law since, the same is based upon incorrect facts in as much the Ld. PCIT has pointed out that the order passed u/s 147 is erroneous as the same has been passed by the Assessing Officer without considering the statement of Sh. Kapil Romanna. That the revision order passed u/s 263 is contrary to the findings of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- during the demonetization period in November 2016, with Sh. Kapil Romana charging a commission of Rs. 19,59,035 and crediting interest of Rs. 3,87,926. The PCIT in show cause notice u/s 263 has pointed out that the AO while passing the order has failed to bring on record the treatment of entries appearing in the ledger account seized in the assessment records of Kapil Romanna. It was also stated that the appellant has relied upon the provisions of the evidence act which are not applicable in income tax. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT passed the order under section 263 of the Act on 05.03.2024. 5. In ground no. 3 the appellant challenged that the order u/s 263 passed by the PCIT is illegal and bad in law since the very assessment order passed u/s 147 is without jurisdiction as the order passes u/s 147 was bad in law as it was completed on the basis of unsigned reasons recorded. 6. The Ld. Counsel Sh. Rohit Kapoor for the appellant has drawn the attention of the bench towards reasons to believe and the same is part of Assessee Paper Book (in short "APB") at page nos. 6-8. The relevant snapshot is reproduced as under: - 7. From the above reasons recorded, the AR explained that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... much as the assessment was framed based on unsigned reasons. The Ld. AR argued that that the revision order passed u/s 263 is bad in law, because the original proceedings bad in law being based on unsigned reasons recorded by the AO. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings would be rendered invalid and void ab initio. 10.1 The counsel of the assessee further placed reliance upon the judgment of HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY in the case of Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. 157 taxmann.com 442 to emphasize that unsigned or draft reasons cannot be regarded as the final reasons recorded by the AO and that the absence of signed reasons violates procedural norms and undermines the foundational principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability in assessment proceedings. The AR further relied upon the following case laws: - a) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 442 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre/ National e- Assessment Centre b) 2022 (6) TMI 178 - ITAT DELHI YOUNG INDIAN, 5A, HERALD HOUSE, BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI VERSUS ACIT (E) , CIRCLE 1 (1) , NEW DELHI. c) 2015 (10) TMI 2633 - ITAT MUMBAI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this regard the AR relied upon the principle of law enshrined in the legal maxim "sublatofundamentocadit opus" which means that when the cause (foundation) is removed, the effect (consequent action) ceases. The AR interpreted the maxim to imply that in view of the original order passed u/s 147 being non-jurisdictional, the order passed u/s 263 arising out of the non-jurisdictional order u/s 147 is a nullity. The legal maxim is supported by the judgment of apex court in the case of Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan [1954 (4) TMI 48 - SUPREME COURT], an order passed by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity, and its invalidity can be challenged whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon. The AR further relied upon the following case laws: - a) HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v.Badal Prakash Jindal* [2023] 150 taxmann.com 483 (Orissa)/[2023] 293 Taxman 350 b) Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1999] 238 ITR 694 (CAL.) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA. c) 2024 (2) TMI 745 - ITAT RAIPU ANIL NACHRANI RAIPUR VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) , BHOPAL d) 2023 (3) TMI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reliance upon the case of Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd v Commissioner of Income tax 110 taxmann.com 170 (Allahabad)/[2019] 267 Taxman 18 to support the contention that where there was due application of mind by the Assessing Officer after making proper enquiries jurisdiction under section 263 could not be exercised. Further reliance was placed upon the following case laws: - A) [2017] 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIT v. Nirav Modi* B) CIT v Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. 196 Taxman 368 C) Copy of judgment of ITAT, Amritsar Bench SMT. ANITA MALPOTRA V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER 109 TTJ 76 D) Loil Continental Foods Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT in ITA No. 577/Chd/2019 Chd- Trib. E) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 194 taxman 504 12.4 We have perused the cases relied upon by the counsel which have been found appropriate in the present case on the issue of enquiries being made by the AO. 12.5 The Ld. AR contended that as all the documents were submitted before the AO and PCIT, as such, the jurisdictional provisions as laid down in the act have duly been complied with by the assessee. The AR argued that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....565 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. H.T.L Ltd.* B) [2022] 141 taxmann.com 512 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shukla Dairy (P.) Ltd.* C) [2021] 130 taxmann.com 496 (Gauhati) HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI CMJ Breweries (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India D) [2022] 145 taxmann.com 590 (Calcutta) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reeta Lakhmani* (E) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) in which it has been stated as under: - (F) [2024] 161 taxmann.com 213 (Pune - Trib.) IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH 'A' Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (G) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 664 (Patna - Trib.) IN THE ITAT, PATNA Gyan Infrabuild (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 13. Having examined the facts of the present case, after perusal of the submissions and citations placed on record, we find that the whole case has been framed based on material found during the search. Meaning thereby, the course of action was required to be taken u/s 153C and not u/s 148. This view has been accepted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to the issues involved in ITA number 279/Asr/2004 in mutatis mutandis, ordered accordingly. 18. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2024 ============= Document 1 2. As per information received from DDIT(Inv.)-1, Ludhiana available on Insight portal of the Department, a copy of account of Doctor Jagjeet Chawala for the period 01.04.2016 to 06.02.2019 was forwarded alongwith information relating to unexplained cash transactions. The scanned copy of the said copy of account is given hereunder:- BTD 2011 DOCTOR JAGJEET CHAWLA Ledger Account 21 Particulare By Cash Vich Type Vch No Excise Inv No Debit BY CASH COUNTED BY SONU AND RONIT Credit 00.00.000 00 By Cash BY CASH BUNDLES OF 100 HUPEE NOTE THKAPIL J Receipt 1529 40 000 00 12-11-2016 By Cash Receipt 1534 BY CASH AD ONE CRORE PAYMENT 16-11-2016 By Cash Receipt 1562 16.000.00 80.11.500.00 BY CASH 3000000-1500-5011500 To Gash Payment Ñтор TO CASH (AFTER SHORT CASH COUNTED AGAIN 11800-0000 30-11-2016 To KOTHI BUSINES....