AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The impugned assessment order passed under section 144/147 r.w.s. 144C is completely without jurisdiction in as much as the ld. Assessing Officer, Circle (INTL TAX), Jaipur not holding any valid jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned notice issued u/s 148 dt.30.03.2022 and the consequent, impugned assessment order dt.29.12.2023 complete nullity being without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 3.1. The Id. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi (DRP-1) has not providing any opportunity despite mandatory procedure statutorily prescribed u/s 144C(5) of the Act. Thus, the impugned order of DRP suffers from the violation of natural justice and being nullity, the same couldn't have been taken cognizance nor could have been followed by the assessing officer. 3.2. The impugned assessment order dt.29.12.2023 therefore, is without jurisdiction and having been passed in absence of a valid draft assessment order passed by the DRP and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 4. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in framing the assessment u / s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation dated 29.03.2023 issued u/s 151A r.w.s 144B of the Act, mandating for the ld. AO to complete the proceeding in faceless manner only as against done manually and hence, the same deserves to be quashed." "10. The ld. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in imposing tax, surcharge, cess etc. as per provision of S.115BBE of the Act. The invoking of S.115BBE is contrary to the provisions of law, on facts and without jurisdiction. The appellant totally denies its liability. The tax liability so created, kindly be deleted in full." 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the record is that the assessee did not file his ITR for the A.Y. 2018-19. There was information available with the department that the assessee had sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs. 69,90,000/-, as the return of income was not filed the transaction remained unverified. Accordingly, after recording the reasons for escapement assessment, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2022 with prior approval taken from the PCIT, Udaipur. The assessee did not file his ITR for the year under consideration even after issue of notice u/s. 148 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. The assessee has stated that the notices have not been received by him and the service of notice therefore, is invalid. The Panel states that the AO had sent the notice as available with her. The AO is further constrained by the fact that assessee has not filed its return of income despite the fact that he had purchased and sold immovable property in India and some of the transactions pertains to subject assessment year. The AO naturally sent notice to that is available as per AIR information/TA9/26AS database. Therefore, the Panel doesn't find any infirmity on the above issue. 3.2 The AO has proposed an addition of Rs. 69,90,000 under section 69A of the Act as assessee didn't comply to the AO's notices. The AO's proposed addition is on account of following fact as mentioned the draft assessment order. "During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked regarding the source of funds used to purchase the said immovable property and doing the above-mentioned transactions vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 02.01.2023, 16.01.2023, 19.03.2023 and show cause notice dated 17.02.2023, 25.03.2023. The assessee in response did not produce any d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning total income at Rs. 69,90,000/. As the ld. DRP has directed to pass speaking order on the contentions raised by the assessee before the ld. DRP, the finding of the ld. AO on the issues raised before DRP are reproduced here in below : "1. The assessee had purchased an immovable property i.e. AMC NO 547/15 Old, Shrinagar, Ajmer for a consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the year 2008 and claimed indexation of purchase cost including other expenses at Rs. 15,22,982/-, However, he has neither mentioned alleged property details in his computation nor furnished purchase documents substantiating his claim. During the assessment proceedings, he did not comply to the statutory notices issued to hirrt. Even after providing sufficient opportunities to file reply, the assessee has not filed even a single reply rather filing objection before the AO. Further, the assessee has also claimed indexation of cost of improvement for construction made in various financial years. In support of cost of improvement the assessee has only submitted a valuation report mentioning therein year wise cost of construction. No supporting evidence of work order, contract of work, payment made related to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... asset; and 4. The income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head "Income from house property". In absence of any reply and documentary evidences, it cannot be ascertained that the assessee has fulfilled the above mentioned conditions and eligible for the deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Further, the assessee has not filed the ITR for claim u/s 54 of the Act. Therefore, considering the circumstances of the case, the deduction u/s 54 cannot be allowed. On basis of the discussion made before the total income of the assessee is computed as under:- Income declared in ITR Not filed Addition on account of LTCG Rs. 69,90,000/- Total Income Rs. 69,90,000/- 5. Aggrieved from that order of the assessment which was passed after the direction of the DRP, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds as stated here in above. To support the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee, he has filed the written submissions and the same is reproduced herein below: "Brief General Facts: Notice u/s 148 dt. 30.03.2022 (P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed by the assessee to the AO, and directs the AO to pass a reasoned order on the basis of above submission of the assessee which is enclosed as an Annexure 'A' to this order. Assessee's objections on the above issue is disposed as above. 4. The objections of the assessee are decided as above. The Assessing Officer is directed to incorporate the findings of the Panel in respect of various objections suitably in the final order. The Assessing Officer shall also place a copy of the Panel Directions as Annexure to the final order". Consequently, assessment order u/s 147/144 r.w.s 144C was passed on 29.12.2023 and addition of entire amount of sale consideration of Rs.69.90 lacs was made. Hence this appeal GOA 1& 2: Action taken u/s 147/148 is completely without jurisdiction on various grounds: Facts: The Income Tax Officer ward 2(2), Ajmer initiated the proceedings u/s 148A by issuing a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) (PB 68-69) and thereafter passing impugned order u/s 148A(d) (PB 79-80) and also impugned notice u/s 148 both dt.30.03.2022 whereas, the correct and legally valid jurisdiction remained with the international charge Circle (INTL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ook support from section 124(3) that no person shall be entitled to challenge the jurisdiction if no ROI has been filed after expiry of the time allowed in a notice u/s 148. In this connection our submissions are as under: 1.2.1. It is absolutely wrong and a complete misreading of the law u/s 148 on the face of it that the term "Assessing Officer" ("AO") means the assessing officer only but not the "Jurisdictional Assessing Officer" ("JAO"). If the interpretation as contended, is accepted then the "AO" may means any AO situated anywhere in the country i.e. right from Jammu & Kashmir till Kanyakumari, may be the AO to assess the income of an assessee stationed at Ajmer, which can never be the legislative intention. 1.2.2. In fact, the term Assessing Officer has been defined u/s 2(7A) of the Act reproduced hereunder: "Assessing Officer means the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director] or the Income-tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 120 or any other provision of this Act, and the Additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... basis of the facts available on the record and, we do not find any substantial question of law arising in the present case. No interference with the impugned order is called for. The appeal is dismissed." The facts of the instant case stand on much stronger footing in as much as the PAN profile (PB-II 105) as also the jurisdictional details (PB 17) available on the portal of the ITD, itself provide the Assessing Officer being the Circle (Intl Tax). The department, day in and day out, has been taking this stand that the Officer shown in the PAN profile is the correct Assessing Officer. B. Mir Zardari Qureshi v. ACIT [2023] 151 taxmann.com 408 (Raipur - Trib.) (DC 3-13) held that: "Whether since ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai at time of initiating proceedings and issuance of notice under section 148 dated 9-3-2018 was not vested with any jurisdiction over case of assessee, assessment framed on basis of 'reasons to believe' along with notice under section 148 dated 9-3-2018 issued by ITO, Ward- 1(3), Bhilai, i.e. a non-jurisdictional Officer, could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed - Held, yes [Paras 16, 17 and 18] [In favour of assessee]" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only, non-filing of ROI could be a ground. However, once ITO Ward 2(2), Ajmer, who issued the Notice u/s 148 was not vested with a valid jurisdiction, the assessee was under no legal obligation to file the ROI and to waive his legal rights/surrender himself to a wrong jurisdiction which he himself is disputing. However, where the authority issuing the notice has no authority at all, there is no requirement of raising any objection within the stipulated period. Moreover, objection u/s 124 is required to be raised only when there is a dispute on the question of territorial jurisdiction of a particular officer. Thus, the objection raised by the Officer, Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur are completely baseless against the provisions of the law and deserves to be rejected. Kindly refer following case laws where such contention is directly supported: 1.4.2 Supporting Case Laws: A. Mir Zardari Qureshi v. ACIT [2023] 151 taxmann.com 408 (Raipur - Trib.) (DC 3-13) held that: "Whether time limit for raising objection to jurisdiction of Assessing Officer prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 124 has a relation to Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as completed accordingly - Subsequently, a notice under section 148 digitally signed by Assessing Officer was sent to assessee through e-mail and e-mail was received by assessee on his registered e-mail ID on 6-4-2021 - Assessee submitted that reassessment notice was issued on 6-4-2021 whereas limitation for issuing notice under section 148 read with section 149 expired on 31-3- 2021 and, thus, notice was time-barred - Said objection was rejected on ground that since notice was digitally signed by Assessing Officer on 31-3-2021, it would be deemed to have been issued within time, i.e., on 31-3-2021 - Whether since impugned notice under section 148 was issued to assessee on 6-4-2021 through e-mail, impugned notice under section 148 was time-barred and consequently, it was to be quashed - Held, yes [Paras 22-30] [In favour of assessee]" Recently Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has also so held in the case of M/s Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT & Ors in D.B.CWP No.8626/2023 (pr.7to9) (DC 36-39) S. No New law Specified authority u/s 151 1. Reopening made within 3 years from the end of the relevant A.Y. Pr. CIT or Pr. DIT or CIT or DIT 2. Reopening ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the order dated 6th February 2024 passed by this Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. 1 Mr. Gupta though in fairness states that it can be covered by Vodafone Idea Limited (supra), he raised the question of maintainability of petition because Assessee did not even respond to the notice issued. But we ask ourselves a question, even if Assessee has not responded would that make an invalid notice valid. The answer is 'NO'. 4. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 20th July 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT-27, Mumbai. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2017-2018 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 20th July 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted only with effect from 1st April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 5. In the circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmation with the A.O. must suggest that some income chargeable tax has escaped the assessment for the relevant assessment year. In other words, it is not any or every or the information simpliciter coming to the possession of A.O. but such information must also suggest some income chargeable tax has escaped the Assessment. The information must have a material bearing on the question on escapement of income. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the AO. Such satisfaction be held in good faith and cannot merely be a pretence. The information must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief as to escapement. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Assessing Officer and the formation is belief regarding escapement of income. However, the Respondent AO did not conform the settled judicial guideline resulting the impugned notice and order, a nullity. 3.1.3 On the other hand however, a bare look upon the impugned draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) dated 29.03.2023 shows a serious contradiction in approach of the AO in as much as on one hand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 Lacs vide a registered sale deed executed on 28.07.2017 (and i.e. the very information also in possession of the AO). Thus, the money of Rs 69.90 Lacs was not source less and the AO himself was of the view that this was a transaction of sale of immovable property hence there is no question of dissatisfaction with regard to such explanation of the source even though already available on the record. iv. The decision cited by the AO propounds the principle on which there is no dispute however, AO was supposed to have demonstrated that how those principles are applicable on the facts of present case, which he has completely failed. GOA 3 & 4: Draft Assessment Order- Nullity: 1. As per the mandate of S.144C (1) of the Act, which starts with a non-obstante clause, the AO is bound to have served a draft of the proposed Order of Assessment (for short "Draft Order") to the Assessee giving him an opportunity to file his objection, if any, thereupon. This clearly implies that the very proposed variation has to be confronted to the Assessee, inviting his objections. However, in that view of the matter, in the instant case, the AO has not given that opportunity (or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act is clearly applicable and it is clear that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order after making enquiries for verification which ought to have been made in this case. However, we find that the Pr. CIT has not mentioned in the show-cause notice issued under section 263 that he is going to invoke the Explanation 2 to 263 hence, invocation of Explanation in the order without confronting the assessee is not appropriate and sustainable in law" Recently in the case of Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2023) 225 TTJ (Mumbai) 137, following Shree Ji Prints (Supra) it is held as under: "11. As regards the finding of the learned Principal CIT that the AO has not verified whether MTM losses are speculative in nature under s. 43(5)(d) of the Act, we find that this allegation does not form part of the notice issued under s. 263 of the Act by the learned Principal CIT and therefore the opportunity was not granted to the assessee to rebut the same. Thus, it is contrary to the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, which specifically requires the grant of opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the civil contractor (PB 66-67), purchase deed of new housing property (PB 52-62) were submitted to support the above contention. Thus, there was no income at all at least in relation to LTCG. Therefore, there was no valid information suggesting escapement of income as contended in the earlier part. 2. AO's allegations are more suspicions: It is surprising that as per AO the property sold had no construction cost at all which is unbelievable. The appellant did furnish copy of the purchase deed dated 21.11.2008 (PB 40-51) for Rs.7 lacs, the indexed cost of which came to Rs.15,22,982/- and could not have been denied. If AO says no property was purchased, there can't be any question of even sale and taxing LTCG. The cost of improvement has been rejected merely saying that no evidence was furnished but completely ignoring that the assessee did file copies of the invoices, bills raised by the civil contractor (PB 66-67). However, all evidences were submitted to DRP (PB-16). The AO himself admitted that a copy of the valuation report by the registered valuer (PB 64-65) was submitted. No site verification was got done by him but he merely proceeded on mere suspicion. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order under S. 148A(d) has been passed in great haste and in gross violation of principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given reasonable time to file a reply-Mandate of s. 148A(c) has been violated as it casts a duty on the AO, by using the expression 'shall', to consider the reply of the assessee in response to notice under s. 148A(b) before making an order under s. 148A(d)-Consequently, the impugned order dt. 4th April, 2022 issued under s. 148A(d) and the notice dt. 4th April, 2022 issued under s. 148 are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the AO for a fresh determination". B. Sanath Kumar Murali vs. ITO & Ors. (2023) 333 CTR (Kar) 189 (DC 88-94) "Reassessment-Notice under s. 148-Limitation under s. 149 vis-a-vis "income escaping assessment"-It is clear that the notice is issued in the context of sale consideration from sale of immoveable property for an amount of Rs. 55,77,700-Reply to the show-cause notice, would reveal the details of sale consideration and the cost of acquisition would be the indexed cost of acquisition-Accordingly, in the present case, the words found in s. 149 which are 'income chargeable to tax' must be read in terms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces and his reasoning of rejection of such working thus, the income arising from the transfer of the immovable property if any to be taxed can be taxed as LTCG but not the income from the other sources (these submissions are without prejudice to our basic contention that the entire addition itself was bad in law and without jurisdiction and for various reasons). 2. AO can't change head of income: 2.1 It is submitted that S.115BBE specifically refers to the income which are of the nature as referred in S. 68,69,69A of the Act being the income from other sources. Therefore, subjected income has essentially to be classified u/s 14 of the Act as Income from Other Sources and that is possible only when the income is not capable of being classified under any other head being income from salary, house property, capital gain, business or profession. 2.2 A combined reading of S.14 with S.56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as enumerated u/s 14 and if it doesn't fall under any specific head of income as per item A to E of S.14, such income has to be assessed under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the excess stock is to be brought to tax under head "business income" and not under the head income from other sources. It was held as under: "2.10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. During the course of survey, the assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs. 70,04,814/- towards investment in stock of rice which had not been recorded in the books of accounts. Subsequently, in the books of accounts, the assessee has incorporated this transaction by debiting the purchase account and crediting the income from undisclosed sources. In the annual accounts, the purchases of Rs. 70,04,814/- were finally reflected as part of total purchases amounting to Rs. 33,47,19,658/- in the profit and loss account and the same also found included as part of the closing stock amount to Rs. 1,94,42,569/- in the profit/loss account since the said stock of rice was not sold out. In addition to the purchase and the closing stock, the amount of RS. 70,04,814/- also found credited in the profit and loss account as income from undisclosed sources. The net effect of this double entry accounting treatment is that firstly the unrecorded stock of rice has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions u/s 69, 69A, 69B & 69C of the Act there should be clearly identifiable investment or asset or expenditure (i.e. in our understanding not connected with business so as to make convenient to invoke aforesaid sections). In case source of investment or asset or expenditure is clearly identifiable and has no independent existence of its own where a case arises to claim that it cannot be separated from business then first 'what is to be taxed is the undisclosed business receipt. Only on failure of such exercise, it would be regarded as taxable u/s 69 on the premises that such excess investment or asset or expenditure is unexplained and unidentified, satisfying the mandate of the law. 3.4 In the case of Shri Lovish Singhal vs ITO (ITA No 142 to 146/Jodh/2018 for AY 2014-15 dated 25.05.2018), the Jodhpur Tribunal applying the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the Bajargan Traders (supra), held that the lower authorities were not justified in taxing the surrender made on account of excess stock and excess cash found U/s 69 of the Act and accordingly held that there is no justification for taxing such income u/s 115BBE of the Act. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (herein after referred to as "TOLA"). Therefore, any proceedings u/s 147 could be initiated only. Accordingly, a notification (PB-II 105) was issued on 29.03.2022 making the Faceless Re-Assessment Scheme binding upon AO in faceless manner and not manually. However, in the present case SCN u/s 148A(b) has been issued on dt. 29.03.2023 followed by the impugned Order u/s148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2022 and impugned Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022, all by the Respondent AO manually, much later then the Notification dated 29.03.2022 [when the E-Re-Assessment Scheme had come into effect] yet however, the provisions of S.151A and the statutorily prescribed Scheme have not at all been complied with hence, the impugned notice and order deserves to be quashed. 3. Supporting Case Laws: 3.1 The CBDT, in the context of faceless assessment scheme, had issued an order u/s 119 of the Act dated 13.08.2020 (DC 95-96) which has clearly held that any assessment order which is not in conformity with faceless assessment scheme shall be treated as non-est. 3.2 Recently in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy & Ors. vs. ITO & Ors. (2023) 334 CTR (Telangana) 646 (D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich has been dealt with above. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said Office Memorandum to justify that the JAO has jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act. Further the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer 14 has held that in view of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act read with the Scheme dated 29th March 2022 the notices issued by the JAOs are invalid and bad in law. We are also of the same view." Additional GOA-8: No DIN Mentioned hence impugned orders to be quashed: 1.1. It is submitted that in order to prevent instances where certain notices, orders, summons, letters and other correspondences which have been issued manually do not have proper audit trail of their communication despite various e-governance initiatives and computerization and to maintain proper audit trail of all the communications, the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT" in short) vide its Binding Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 (PB-II 106-107) has made it obligatory on the part of the authorities below to essentially mention of Document Identification Number ("DIN" for short) and has directed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot conformity with Para 2 and Para 3. Accordingly, the DRP order dated 30.12.2021 is held to be null and void ab initio and quashed. Thus, the additional grounds No. 24 & 25 raised by the assessee on the legal issue are allowed." While holding so, the Hon'ble ITAT has firstly admitted the additional ground of Appeal in Para 5 and thereafter, followed the decision in the case of Intrado EC India Private Ltd. v. DCIT IT(TP)A No.239/Bang/2021. 2.2 Recently Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs ACIT & Ors. (WP no.1778/2023), was dealing with a notice issued u/s 148, without DIN and held as under: "31 As regards issue no.3, in the notice dated 27th August 2022 impugned in the petition, admittedly there is no DIN mentioned. It is petitioner's case that the notice is invalid and bad in law in view of the Circular No.19 of 2019 dated 14th August 2019 issued by CBDT. A separate intimation letter also dated 27th August 2022 was issued and the said letter reads as under: xxx----xxx-----xxx-----xxx-----xxx We agree with petitioner that this letter cannot validate the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the cases of CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. (1997) 94 Taxman 271/228 ITR 463 (SC), wherein, it was held that circulars bind the ITO but will not bind the Court or even the Assessee. In the case of UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 104 Taxman 547/237 ITR 889 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the legal status of such circulars, observed thus (page 896): "Such instructions may be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the sections specified there or otherwise. The Board thus has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage under the Act is given the right to forgo the advantage when required to wield it in a manner it considers just by relaxing the rigour of the law or in other permissible manners as laid down in section 119. The power is given for the purpose of just,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he D.R.P. 16 6. Copy of Passport 17-20 7. Copy of letter dated 23.03.23 requesting for supplying necessary information and/or certified copies along with the acknowledgement 21-22 8. Copy of CBDT Instruction N0. 1/ 2022 dated 11.05.2022 23-25 9. Copy of registered sale date dated 28.07.2017 26-39 10. Copy of registered purchase date dated 21.11.2008 40-51 11. Copy of registered Articles of Agreement date 31.05.2018 52-62 12. Chart showing computation of Long Term Capital Gain 63 13. Copy of valuation report by the Approved Architects Engineers & Valuers i.e., Daksh Architectural Works, Ajmer 64-67 14. Copy of Show Cause Notice issued u/s 148A(b) dt.17.03.2022 by the ITO ward 2(2), Ajmer 68-69 15. Copy of the legal objections against the order under section 148(d), dated 23.03.2023 filed before the ITO-ward 2(2) Ajmer, along with acknowledgement of uploading. 70-76 16. Copy of order dated 25.03.2023 by the ACIT Circle (INTL TAX),Jaipur regarding disposal of legal objections 77-78 18. Copy of order passed u/s 148A(d) dt.30.03.2022 by the ITO ward-2(2), Ajmer 79-80 19. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidering the nature of grounds raised by the assessee being technical in nature the same are admitted. 9. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee submitted that the impugned order u/s 148(d), notice under section 148 both dated 30.03.2022 and notices u/s 142 for AY 2018-19, are completely devoid of jurisdiction in as much as the Income Tax officer, Ward 2(2), Ajmer was not vested with a valid jurisdiction in terms of S.120 read with 124 of the Act. The facts are not disputed that the assessee is a non-resident Indian. He has been residing outside India since last almost more than 25 years. He came back to India only on dated 22nd June 2022 (copy of passport enclosed PB 18-19). Thus, in any case during the relevant financial year 2017-18 (AY-2018-19), he completely remained outside India. Accordingly, in his PAN profile also, the jurisdictional AO is shown as the International Charge i.e. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR. Copy of the PAN profile is placed on record in paper book page 17 & PB-II 105. Thus, the jurisdiction of the assessee continues to fall with the International Charge CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, as per PAN profile, there is no le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nn.com 408 (Raipur - Trib.) (DC 3-13), Abdul Azeez Haroon vs DCIT (International Taxation) (2020) 317 CTR 610 (Mad) (DC 14-17) and Saroj Sangwan vs. ITO (2024) 162 Taxmann.com 704 (ITAT, Delhi) (DC 18-22). The ld. AR of the assessee argued that where the authority issuing the notice has no authority at all, there is no requirement of raising any objection within the stipulated period. Moreover, objection u/s 124 is required to be raised only when there is a dispute on the question of territorial jurisdiction of a particular officer. Thus, the objection raised by the Officer, Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur are completely baseless against the provisions of the law and deserves to be rejected. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that though the notice alleged to be of dated 31.03.2022 but the same was issued on 13.04.2022 therefore, the law as applicable in the fact of the case is the new regime. As held by the apex court in the case of UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal 326 CTR 473 the assessing officer has to follow the procedure as prescribed in the new law. In support of this contention he relied upon the decision of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (2022) 136 taxmann.com ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Y. 2018-19-regarding. Ref.: Letter No. 119 dated 06.05.2024 and No. 143 dated 14.05.2024 Kindly refer to the above. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the assessee was non-filer for the A.Y. 2018-19. There was information available with the department that the assessee had sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs. 69,90,000/-. Since, the assessee was non-filer during the year under consideration, the said transaction remained unverified. Accordingly, after recording the reasons for escapement assessment, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2022 with prior approval taken from the competent authority. However, in compliance to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file his ITR for the year under consideration. During the assessment proceedings, statutory notices were issued to the assessee requiring him to furnish relevant documentary evidence to substantiate the said transaction carried out by the assessee. Despite providing sufficient opportunity, the assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence and failed to explain and justify the said transaction. Considering these facts, the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT, Circle (Intl. Tax.), Jaipur charge when it came to notice to the AO that the assessee is having NRI status. This fact was disclosed when the assessee has filed his written submission during the assessment proceedings. It is the duty of assessee itself to disclose his correct facts pertaining to the transactions in question even his residential status also. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was having opportunity to challenge jurisdiction within time limit. However, he failed to do so. After completing the assessment proceedings, the assessee cannot take liberty to challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. For the sake of brevity, provisions of section 124 of the Act are reproduced as under - "Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers. 124. (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer has been vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of such area, he shall have jurisdiction- (a) in respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situate within the area, or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion (2) of section 1530 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any direction or order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officer shall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act on an Assessing Officer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue of the directions or orders issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120" As such, there is no lack, or error of jurisdiction or any procedural lacuna/defect in the proceedings. Thus, the ground taken by the assessee in respect of having incorrect jurisdiction is not acceptable and vehemently denied. (2) In this matter, limitation to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act was going to be expired on 31.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 78 of 2022 which is squarely applicable in this case. The relevant paragraph of the judgement is as under- *29, Thus, considering the provisions of Section 282 and 282A of the Act 1961 and the provisions of Section 13 of the Act 2000 and meaning of the word "Issue" we find that firstly notice shall be signed by the assessing authonty and then it has to be issued either in paper form or to be communicated in electronic form by delivering or transmitting the copy thereof to the person therein named by modes provided in section 282 which includes transmitting in the form of electronic record. Section 13(1) of the Act, 2000 provides that unless otherwise agreed, the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resources outside the control of the onginator. Thus, the point of time when a digitally signed notice in the form of electronic record is entered in computer resources outside the control of the originator Le the assessing authonty that shall the date and time of issuance of notice under section 148 read with Section 149 of the Act, 1961." In this matter, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a computation of income filed by the assessee before Hon'ble DRP. This computation consists only details of sale value, indexed cost of improvement and capital gain and no such supporting documents were furnished therewith. This is the only document which was filed by the assessee in support to his claim. As per the directions issued by Hon'ble DRP as well as considering the evidences furnished by the assessee, final assessment order was passed on 29.12.2023 making addition of Rs. 69,90,000/- on account of Long-Term Capital Gain. Your good self will find that the AO while passing final assessment order has duly incorporated all the facts available on record and discussed each issue in detail. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to substantiate the transaction with regard to receive sales consideration, accordingly, the money received by him remained unexplained and treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. However, while finalizing final assessment order, additional evidences furnished by the assessee has been duly examined. After examining the additional evidences, it is emerged that the assessee has received sales consideration but he failed to p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lying the contentions of the ld. AO submitted that since the transaction was flagged in the system and it was fit case to issue the notice u/s. 148 the same was issued and that objection were dealt with as the assessee has not filed his ITR. The assessee never filed the ITR even after the issue of notice u/s. 148. As in this case the notice is within 3 year and the same was issue within three years the approval taken was in accordance with the law as the notice was issued on 31.03.2022. The assessment was re-opened on the valid information and the case of the assessee being of the non-filler case the notice was issued by the ITO, Ajmer. The assessee not remained compliant with the notices of the ld. AO as well as of the ld. DRP. The assessee has not supported the contention with valid explanations and proof the indexation benefit cannot be given to the assessee. The assessee has not supported the cost incurred with supporting evidence. As regards the claim of the assessee u/s. 54F no such information was filed by the assessee before the ld. AO. The levy of tax u/s. 69A and charge of tax under section 115BBE is consequential in nature. As regards the DIN not attached in the order of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sclosing of LTCG is made by the AO. Interestingly, in the first few lines of above sale deed only at internal page 1 (PB 30), it is stated that the appellant (the seller) was residing at Dubai, UAE during that relevant point of time. Thus, it was very well known to the Department that the appellant had been residing at Dubai, therefore, the correct jurisdiction rested with the international taxation. 1.2 (Reply Para 1) Further on the aspect of S. 124(3), the Id. DR completely failed to controvert the submissions and the case laws cited in our revised WS dated 27.05.2024, which are once again relied upon. 2. (Reply Para 2) With regard to the contention of the issuance of the impugned notice u/s 148 after 01.04.2022 and hence the same was barred by limitation, it is solely an internal affair of the department as to when the notice digitally signed on 30.03.2022 is instantly entered and transmitted in the ITBA system. Also, the notice is instantly transmitted to the e-filing portal of the assessee under e- proceedings. However, when one looks upon the e-portal at the relevant place, there appears no date and time of uploading the impugned notice u/s 148 after digital....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R of the assessee submitted that ITO, Ajmer has accepted the fact that the assessee is NRI and therefore, he himself transferred the case record. In support the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the PAN profile filed and copy of order sheet entries filed by the ld. DR. As regards the issue and service of notice the same is not correct. Notice was emailed on 13.04.2022. So the notice issued is beyond three years' time and the approval of the CCIT is also not obtained. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. In this appeal the assessee has taken almost in all 11 grounds of appeal challenging the finding of the lower authority on facts as well as on legal grounds. In ground no. 1 & 2 the assessee has challenged the validity of issue of notice and connected approval together with the jurisdiction of the ld. AO who issued the notice to the assessee. Since this ground no. 1 & 2 goes into the route of all other grounds the bench decided to deal that ground first. 12.1 The facts related to the disputes as cullied out from the record is that the assessee for the year under consideration has not filed any income tax return. The revenue was in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was valid from 16.03.2015 to 13.03.2025 and place of issue is Dubai (APB-18), at page 20 the details of old passport and place of issue shows Dubai. At page 17 of the paper book the jurisdictional details of the assessee is filed it shows the "Circle (Intl.Tax), Jaipur. Thus, the ld. AO while sending this report based on the submission has not controverted this aspect of the matter which establishes that the residential status of the assessee is undisputedly NRI as on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thus, based on this evidence placed on record and the same being not controverted we are of the considered view that when the assessee is non-resident as on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The bench further noted from order sheet entry dated 16.03.2023 that Faceless Assessment Unit (FAU) requested through NaFAC to transfer out this case from them because the case is of non-resident individual or of a foreign company and can be assessed only at international charge. Thus, the contention raised by the assessee has already been observed by the FAU in the assessment proceeding when the case was transmitting from ITO, Ajmer to FAU. In the light of the....