TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment framed on the basis of notice issued u/s 143(2) by the Income tax officer Ward 71(2) and thereafter transfer of the file to Ward 17(4) without following the prescribed procedure of law 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while upholding the income from capital gains to be income from undisclosed sources. 3. The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and facts while dismissing the ground that the provisions of section 68 were not applicable on the assessee when he was not maintaining any books of accounts. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while upholding the addition of Rs. 2,48,353/- on account of expenditure from undisclosed sources to be income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ins to be income from other sources and another amount of Rs. 2,48,353/- to be undisclosed income on account of undisclosed expenditure vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28-12-2016.Thus, assessment was framed at a total income of Rs. 56,71,020/- and tax was charged u/s 115BBE @ 30% on 28.11.2018. 4. Aggrieved the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and vehemently contended that no due opportunity was given to the assessee company to justify its claim. The assessee further contended that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order on the basis of notice u/s 143(2) issued by another Assessing Officer without complying and following the procedures prescribed under law. 5. After considering the facts and submissions, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cle 50(1), Delhi 8. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that there was no order u/s 127 of the Act transferring the case from ITO Ward 71(5) to ITO 17(4). Therefore, it is reiterated that the notice u/s 143(2) issued by the ITO Ward 17(4), who has passed assessment order, being time barred, the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act was bad in law. It was also submitted that there was only transfer of record which cannot be equated with transfer of case u/s 127(2) and accordingly assessment proceedings cannot be taken as transferred. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the co-coordinate bench in the case of Sangeeta Wahi ITA No. 930/DEL/2023 order dated 20.11.2024 wherein under similar circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the present appeal is whether an Assessing Officer can pass an assessment order in the case of an assessee on the basis of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued by another Assessing Officer, without assuming jurisdiction under section 127(2) of the Act. 12. We find from the factual matrix of the case that the Assessee filed his Return of income for AY 2014-15 at Rs. 4,55,610/- vide return dated 21-02-2015 with Income Tax Office, Ward 40(1), Delhi. Thereafter, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 40(1), Delhi issued and served notice u/s 143(2) dated 18-09-2015 to the assessee. Soon thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) dated 22.09.2015 was also received from Income Tax Officer, Ward 71(2), Delhi. Assessee further received notices u/s 142(1) dated 29.4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee. 15. In similar facts, the ITAT decided in the case of Sangeeta Wahi (supra) and the case of Pushpa Gupta (supra) relied upon by the assessee, that without a valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 127, the assessment order would be rendered illegal and invalid. The reliance on the case of Ashwani Kumar is misplaced as the same dealt with a situation where notice u/s 143(2) was not issued. The case of Abhishek Jain (supra) relied upon by the Id. DR are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In that case, the assessee had raised objections over the jurisdiction of the AO issuing notice i.e. ITO ward (1)(1), Noida and asked to transfer his case to Delhi, which is not in the present case. The case of the assessee ....