TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 2017
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere served upon assessee through affixture. Information u/s 133(6) of the Act was called for from the Bank of Baroda, Nakodar and Canara Bank, Nakodar. On perusal of the account opening form of Canara Bank, it was found that the assessee was NRI having British Passport and living in U.K. and his two addresses (one of abroad and one of India ) were as below: "ST 30, ALSILAM ROAD, HAYS, MIDDLESEX, UB31SD # 137, SHANKAR ROAD, NAKODAR" Thereafter, the ITO, Nakodar transferred the case to DCIT, (International Taxation ) Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as 'DCIT(IE)'] vide letter dated 18.10.2016 for completion of assessment in the case of the assessee. The DCIT(IE) accordingly issued notice dated 22.11.2016 u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee at his Nakodar address. However, since no one appeared, the DCIT (IE) completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and made the addition of the aforesaid amount found deposited in the bank account of the assessee, into the income of the assessee considering the same as unaccounted income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the above order of the DCIT (IE) / Assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....even since the land sold was an agricultural land situated outside the municipal limit, therefore, the sale proceeds were not liable for capital gains tax. Regarding other deposits of Rs. 29 lacs, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the said property in fact was transferred within the family by the assessee. After considering the valuation of the property and the share that the appellant had received out of the sale of property, capital gains tax was not leviable on the said proceeds also. He, therefore, allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the legal grounds taken by the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has come in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,00,000/- (being unexplained cash deposit in Bank of Baroda) relying on the submission of the assessee that cash deposit represents the cash received from the sale proceeds of the agricultural properties in the absence of documentary evidence, without further verification and also by ignoring the facts narrated by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined the source of Rs. 37 lacs in his bank account. Similarly, in respect of deposit of Rs. 29 lacs out of the sale proceeds of share of the assessee in the house, the assessee had duly placed on file the agreement to sell as well as the family partition deed and, therefore, assessee has duly explained the source of the aforesaid deposits. The assessee has also furnished the valuation report of the property. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the said valuation report, the amount actually received by the assessee from the transfer of his share in the ancestral property in the name of his nephew, in our view, has rightly held that the assessee had duly explained the source of the said deposit and also that no capital gains had accrued to the assessee on the transfer of the said share in the ancestral house. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. Now coming to the Cross objections i.e. C.O. No. 42/Chd/2018 raised by the assessee. 11. Admittedly, the notice u/s 148 of the Act and further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued by the ITO, Nakodar. None of the notice were actually served upon the assessee. Every notice se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aks that the amount in question were deposited in the NRI account of the assessee and since the assessee was an NRI, which fact was duly available on record, the ITO Nakodar had no jurisdiction to initiate reopening of the assessment by way of issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act. Even the said notice has not been served upon the assessee. The ITO, Nakodar had no jurisdiction to reopen or pass the assessment order and that is why he had transferred the pending assessment proceedings to the DCIT (IE), Chandigarh. Admittedly, the DCIT (IE) having specific information that the assessee was residing at U.K. and also having the U.K. address of the assessee chose to issue notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22.11.2016 at the Nakodar address of the assessee and not at the U.K. address. Admittedly, no notice u/s 148 of the Act by the DCIT (IE), Chandigarh to the assessee was issued. Since the ITO, Nakodar had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, hence, any notice issued by him has no legal validity. So far as the DCIT (IE), Chandigarh is concerned, he admittedly did not issue any notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee, therefore, the very reopening of the assessment without issuance ....