TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee could not prove its contention with supporting documentary evidences. Ld. Counsel particularly referred to para 5.2 of the CIT(Appeals) order in this regard. Ld. Counsel submits that the cash flow statement furnished by the assessee was completely ignored by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. Coming to the validity of reopening of assessment Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in the case of the assessee notice was issued u/s 143(2) by ITO, Ward 38(2), New Delhi and whereas the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed by the ITO, Ward 5(2)(3), Noida. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment is framed u/s 143(3) by Noida Officer i.e. ITO, Ward 5(2)(3) without valid transfer order u/s 127 of the Act for shifting of ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m ITO, Ward 38(2), Delhi. We observe that the identical issue came up for consideration of the Bench in the case of Saroj Sangwan Vs. ITO (supra) wherein the Tribunal held as under: "4. Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the case laws relied on. 5. On perusal of page 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 De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITO, Ward 2(3), Noida therefore, transferred this case to ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the ITO, Ward 2(3), Noida who has recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment was not having jurisdiction over the case of assessee and that the ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad who has further issued notice u/s 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edgment of return filed originally, the ITO, Ward 2(3), Noida transferred this case to ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad, vide letter dated 07.09.2017 (PB 10). The AO while completing the assessment in this case has taken the shelter of provisions of section 129 of the Act. However, the said provision is not applicable because it is a matter of assumption of valid 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 consequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow and quash the reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. Resultantly the entire addition stands deleted." 7. This decision squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case. Thus, respectfully following the said decision, the reassessment made by the ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon on the basis of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. ITO, Ward 69(1), New Delhi, is hereby quashed. Ground nos. 5 & 6 are allowed." 7. In the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Vimal Gupta (supra) the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under: - 2. Although other grounds have been pressed by the Revenue regarding the validity of the impugned order of the ITAT holding the assessment order passed under Sec....