TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der is void-ab- initio and bad-in-law and thus the order may kindly be annulled. II. On the fact and in the peculiar circumstances of the present case the reasons so recorded by the ITO, Bareilly itself are vitiated as the appellant had made a true and fair disclosure and that the investment so made cannot be disclosed in the Return so filed and further as per the reasons recorded the income escaping assessment is of Rs. 65,73,000/- and whereas the addition towards purchase has been made of Rs. 16,92,000/- only and thus the addition is devoid of any merit and needs to be quashed. Without Prejudice to Grounds Nos. I and II above: III. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 11,92,000/- as alleged undisclosed investment in purchase of property whereas in fact the purchase has been made from out of known and disclosed sources of income available with the appellant at that time and thus the addition made without any basis only on whims and fancies, on a wholly misconstrued fact may kindly be ordered to be deleted. IV. That the Ld. CIT(A) did not afford the appellant any proper or sufficient opportunity to hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... compliance was made or the case would be decided ex parte. However, subsequent notices were not replied with either. Thereafter, the ld. AO issued a notice on 18.03.2016 proposing to make additions of Rs. 11,92,500/- on account of amounts paid by the assessee for the purchase of residential land from Sh. Sunil Kumar, amount paid for stamp duty with relation to the above transaction, amount paid on account of registration charges for the above transaction and amount invested in shares of M/s Dishra Infrabuild India Pvt. Ltd. The objections of the assessee were also invited. However, the assessee refused to receive the notice and after obtaining a report to this effect from the Notice Server, the ld. AO went ahead and completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 at Rs. 11,92,500/-. 3. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. AO. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the notice under section 148 had been issued by an ITO who did not enjoy any jurisdiction in the case or over the assessee and therefore, since the notice under section 148 was bad in law, the order passed subsequently was void ab initio and bad in law and required to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that since the jurisdictional AO had not issued the notices on time as compulsorily required, no proceedings could be launched against the assessee on the basis of a non-est notice. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All) and Pr. CIT vs. Mohd Rizwan in ITA No.100 of 2015 wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held that notice issued by an officer who had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid and that proceedings of re-assessment pursuant to notice under section 148 by incompetent officer are void ab initio, the assessment done thereafter is bad in law and deserved to be vacated. Accordingly, the assessee prayed that the additions may be quashed as being bad in law. 4. The ld. CIT(A) considered this issue and held that the above legal submission of the assessee is de void of any merit as AOs can have concurrent jurisdiction, as held by the Hon'ble Courts in a number of cases. It was the assessee who had filled the incorrect address of Bareilly in the sale deed and she could not therefore, take the plea that the notice was sent to the incorrect address. However....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ggrieved at this order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. appearing on behalf of the assessee (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) submitted that an objection to jurisdiction could be raised at any time and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had held in the case of CIT vs. Lalit Kumar Bardia (2017) 84 taxman.com 2013, that the issue of lack of jurisdiction can be raised even in appeal or in execution. The ld. AR further submitted that the notice under section 148 could only be issued by the ld. AO having jurisdiction over the case. For the above proposition, he relied upon the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh vs. CIT (1996) 89 taxman 536 (P&H) and Dushyant Kumar Jain vs. DCIT (2016) 66 taxman.com 126. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2008) 115 ITD 419 (Lucknow) and the case of Mavany Brothers vs. CIT (2015) 62 taxman.com 50 (Bombay). In the case of M.I. Builders, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had held that unless concurrent jurisdiction had been assigned to two officers, it could not be said that the officer who iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the question of jurisdiction was to be resolved by the Competent Authority as provided under section 124(2). The ld. AR further submitted that section 124(2) had to be resorted to Suo Moto by the ld. AO without awaiting the objection of the assessee under section 124(3). The ld. AR further submitted that section 124(3) was only applicable for returns under section 139(1) and not against the re-assessment notice. This was evident from a plain reading of section 124(3). Finally, the ld. AR submitted that a transfer under section 127 was necessary for vesting of jurisdiction in other AOs and since the jurisdiction of the assessee had not been transferred to Bareilly under section 127, the officer there had no jurisdiction to issue a notice to the assessee and the assessee was not obliged to respond to such notice. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed that since the notice under section 148 had been issued by an officer who lacked the jurisdiction to issue such notice, the consequent assessment proceedings were bad in law and deserved to be quashed. On the merits of the case, he submitted that the assessee was regularly filing a return and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that she....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ior to the issue of notice under section 148. In fact, it was the duty of the ld. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bareilly to determine whether the concerned assessee was assessed within his jurisdiction. The mere fact that a Bareilly address was mentioned in the sale deed, cannot confer jurisdiction upon the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bareilly, to assess the income of the assessee. An assessee may have more than one address and may choose to give any one address in a document, but that could not transfer the jurisdiction from his or her designated Assessing Officer. Thus, the notice issued by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bareilly was clearly beyond his jurisdictional competence. It is, therefore, non-est in the eyes of law. Since, the notice is non-est in the eyes of law, the question of assessee, being required to file an objection to reject assumption of jurisdiction would not be necessary. In fact, the jurisdiction is not questioned by the Department either. Upon realizing that the correct jurisdiction vested in the ITO, Ward-1(3), Lucknow, the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bareilly himself transferred the case of the assessee from Bareilly to Lucknow. However, by this time, the time period for issue of notice under section 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a pari materia provision, i.e., Section 34 under old Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1922") was considered and it was held that A.O. having power to issue notice should be a particular A.O. having jurisdiction over Assessee at the time of issue of requisite notice. If notice issued by any other A.O. or notice is bad for any reason, than such back assessment would be illegal. 38. In Anirudhsinhji Jadeja and another Vs. State of Gujarat 1995 (5) SCC 302, Court held, if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. 39. In K.K. Loomba and Mrs. Uma Loomba Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others 2000 (241) ITR 152 (Delhi) it was held that A.O. having natural jurisdiction over the area would have jurisdiction to assess, issue notice under Section 148 as well and it cannot be done by anyone else. 40. Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another 1996 (220) ITR 446 (Punjab) said "a notice for reassessment can be issued only by A.O. who had concluded the proceedings." 41. We, however, do not go ....