TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to issue such notice. 2(b). That, in the absence of the satisfaction of conditions prescribed u/s 147 for reopening the case u/s 148, the whole of the assessment proceedings u/s 147 are 'void ab-initio' and liable to be quashed. 3.(a) That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the true facts of the case where the appellant had duly intimated to the Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Kurukshetra about his NRI status prior to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 3.(b) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding as per para 4.4 that some of the letters submitted by the assessee for which there are valid receipts that they are not available in the record of the ITO, Ward-2, Kurukshetra. 4. Further the Ld. CIT(A) 43, New Delhi has grossly erred in confirming that the notice u/s 148 has been issued by the jurisdictional AO, since the department itself has confirmed that the jurisdiction in case of the Appellant lay with the DCIT, International Taxation, New Delhi, when the case of the appellant was transferred during the impugned assessment proceedings and assessment completed by the DCIT (International Taxation), on the strength of notice u/s 148 as issued by the Assessing Officer,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that whatever deposits in the bank were made, that were out of the amount earned and brought from Spain and out of the agriculture income earned by the assessee. After exchange of many letters, the Assessing officer i.e. ITO Ward-3, Kurukshetra issued notice for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act, which was contested by the assessee inter alia on the ground of jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward -3, Kurukshetra to issue notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act on the ground of Territorial jurisdiction pleading that since the assessee had been to Spain for the period from June 2004 to 15.10.2008, hence, the status of assessee was that of a NRI for the assessment year under consideration and as such ITO, Ward-3, Kurukshetra had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment or to frame the assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act. However, ITO Ward-3, Kurukshetra reopened the assessment and asked the assessee to file the return of income, in response of which, the assessee filed the return of income. The assessee, however, made representation to the higher officers to the effect that the ITO, Ward-3, Kurukshetra did not have any jurisdiction to reopen and frame the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Spain from June 2004 to October 2008, which was duly supplied by the assessee alongwith relevant documents of working and earning income there, vide letter dated 9.12.2016. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the Notice dated 18.3.2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act and submitted that even before issuance of notice on 18.3.2016, the assessee vide various letters, as mentioned above, had duly informed the ITO, Kurukshetra that the status of the assessee during the relevant period was that of a NRI. However, the ITO, Ward-3, Kurukshetra proceeded to reopen the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act for which he had got no jurisdiction. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has further invited our attention to the letter dated 8.12.2016, whereby, the assessee had requested the JCIT to intervene stating that the status of assessee was that of a NRI during the relevant period and that ITO, Ward-3,Kurukshetra did not have jurisdiction to frame the assessment, rather, the jurisdiction to frame the assessee was DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon, whereupon, the JCIT, as stated above, vide letter dated l9.12.2016 directed the ITO, Kurukshetra to accede to the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITR 0115 GUJ-High Court 3. Smt. SmritiKedia Vs. Union of India & Ors 339 ITR 0037 CAL-High Court 4. Income Tax Officer V/s Sunil Kumar 153 TAXMANN 38 CHD-TRIB (MAG) 5. Income Tax Officer Vs. Rajender Prasad Gupta 48 DTR489 JODHPUR-TRIB 6. ACIT Vs. ReshamPetrotech Ltd 136 ITD 185 AHD-TRIB 7. Gaurav Joshi V/s Income Tax Officer 174 DTR 353 JAL-CAMP ASR TRIB 8. Sahi! Mahajan V/s Income Tax Officer ITA NO. 353/ASR/2016 9. Amrik Singh V/s Income Tax Officer 142 DTR 6 ASR-TRIB 10. BirBahadur Singh SijwaliV/s Income Tax Officer 53 taxmann.com 366 DEL-TRIB 11. Income Tax Officer V/s Lakhmani Mewal Dass 103 ITR 347 (SC) 12. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Paramjit Kaur 311 ITR 38 P&H-High Court 13. Income Tax Officer V/s JRB Strips Pvt. Ltd ITA NO. 442/CHD/2017 CHD-TRIB 14. Income Tax Officer V/s Balwant Singh Jutla ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018 CHD-TRIB 15. Monika Rani V/s Income Tax Officer ITA NO. 582/CHD/2019 CHD-TRIB 16. Manjit Singh V/s DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) ITA NO. 867/CHD/2018 CHD-TRIB 17 Prabha Goyal V/s Income Tax Officer ITA NO. 1139/CHD/2017 CHD-TRIB 10. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribun....