2025 (7) TMI 376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case as emanating from records are: The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2008-09 declaring loss of Rs. 10,97,461/-. The return of income was accepted u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, a survey operation was carried out in the case of Shreeji Group of cases, the assessee is one of the group companies. During the course of survey operation it was gathered that Shreeji Group of Companies have received huge share capital/share premium from various entities. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) had issued notices to various parties to verify identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The assessee allegedly failed to prove identity of the following parties: Name of the Entity ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee has filed return of income declaring loss of Rs. 10,97,461/-. Therefore, the assessment order should have been passed by the ITO, whereas, in the case of the assessee, the assessment order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, the assessment order has been passed by an Officer who has no jurisdiction over the assessee. He further pointed that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 31.03.2015, whereas, as per the monetary limit specified as per the aforesaid instructions the notice should have been issued by the ITO having jurisdiction over the assessee. In support of his aforesaid arguments he placed reliance on the following decisions:- i. Ashok Devichand Jain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune." 7. The case of the assessee is that since in the return of income the assessee has declared loss of Rs. 10,97,461/-, the ITO had jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in the case of assessee, whereas the assessment order has been passed by the DCIT. When the ld. DR was confronted with the aforesaid instructions he sought time to ascertain the facts and also to place on record a copy of the order passed u/s. 127 of the Act, whereby the jurisdiction of the AO was changed from ITO to DCIT. As prayed for by the ld. DR time was granted to furnish copy of the order passed u/s. 127 of the Act, if any. On the next date of hearing the ld. DR expressed his inab....