TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pleted without issuing notice u/s. 143(2) by the authority passing the assessment order. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (187 ITR 688), is submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee purely legal ground going to the root of the matter and its adjudication does not require any fresh investigation into facts apart from looking into material already on record. 4. The assessee has raised following additional ground : - "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and also in law, the assessment order passed by ITO, Ward- 5, Karnal is invalid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction for completion of assessment. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (446 ITR 26). Referring to this decision the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the Hon'ble High Court held that where the case was transferred from one AO having jurisdiction over the assessee to another AO who otherwise did not have jurisdiction in terms of the direction of the Board under Section 120 and 124 of the Act, then transfer order u/s.127 is mandatory without which the jurisdiction of the AO cannot be conferred to pass any assessment order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. ACIT 79 ITR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n figures, if any, has been duly explained in reply to show cause notice by submitting relevant documents and the AO has not made any adverse inference on the documents submitted by the AO. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred both in law and in facts of the case in making various additions disturbing the trading results deduced from the regular books of accounts without complying with the requirements of rejecting books of account u/s 145(3) of IT Act and consequently completing the assessment on best judgement basis. The Ld. AO in absence of rejecting the books of account was required to compute the income on the basis of books of account in accordance with provision of sec 145(1) of IT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on: (i) Vedanta Resources Ltd vs ACIT W.P.(C) No.6372 of 2022 (Orissa) (ii) Louis Dreyfus Company Asia Pte Ltd vs CITW.P.(C) No.9713/2019 (Del) (iii) Nirmal Gupta vs Pr CIT ITA No.l 08/Del/2018 dt: 22.06.2021 (iv) ITO vs M/s NVS Builders P Ltd ITA No.3729/Del/2012 dt: 08.03.2018 (v) Cosmat Traders P. Ltd. (2021) 128 taxmann.com 174(Kol) (vi) Sanjay Kumar Singhal vs. ITO, ITA No.3581/Del/2023, dated 30.04.2025. 7. The ld. AR submitted that there was no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued by the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 2(7A) r.w.s. 120(3) of the Act. The provisions of sec 292BB does not come to the rescue of the depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edanta Resources Ltd vs ACIT W.P.(C) No.6372 of 2022 (Orissa) B. Louis Dreyfus Company Asia Pte Ltd vs CIT W.P.(C) No.9713/2019 (Del) C. Nirmal Gupta vs Pr CIT ITA No.108/Del/2018 dt: 22.06.2021 D. ITO vs M/s NVS Builders P Ltd ITA No.3729/Del/2012 dt: 08.03.2018 E. Cosmat Traders P. Ltd. (2021) 128 taxmann.com 10. As per the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (2017) 84 taxmann.com 213 (Bombay), it is well settled law the assessment order has to be passed by the only authority having jurisdiction over an assessee. It is held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction upon the Ld. AO who otherwise was not the Ld.AO of the assessee." ....