TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sdiction to issue such notice under these circumstances said notice is null and void and order passed by deputy commissioner on the basis of said notice should be treated bad in law and is liable to be struck down. (please see page latter 15.01-2021. 2. Assessment orders passed by Ld deputy commissioner of income tax are also bad in law and void ab initio under the following facts and circumstances. (i) Ld Deputy Commissioner had passed the assessment orders 143(3), whereas the language of the final notice issued u/s 142(1) and assessment orders shows that he had decided the case exparte u/s 144 to the best of his judgment. (ii) Ld Deputy Commissioner He had not fulfilled the required conditions to passed best judgment as per sub section (a) (b) (c) of section 144." 3. Time was allowed to the Department for seeking factual report from the AO on additional legal and jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee/appellant. Since, additional grounds raised by the assessee are legal in nature and goes to the root of validity of the assessment order, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are admitted for adjudication. 4. Shri W. A. Khan, appearin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi and the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed by the ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi. The ld. Counsel, assailing the validity of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued by the ITO, Ward 46(1), New Delhi submitted that the assessment order was passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi without issuing fresh notice u/s 143(2) of the Act after transfer of jurisdiction u/s 127 of the Act. The ld. Counsel submits that after transfer of jurisdiction, it was incumbent upon the AO to whom jurisdiction of the assessee's case was transferred to issue fresh notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act issued by the ITO, Ward 46(1), was without jurisdiction, as the ITO, Ward 46(1) had himself admitted that he cannot make the assessment in the case of assessee. 6. On merits of the addition, the ld. Counsel submits that in the statement recorded on 14.03.2019 at the time when the assessee was intercepted by the Surveillance Team, the assessee categorically stated that the cash amount of Rs. 5,65,000/- belonged to M/s Bansal Enterprises. The assessee was carrying cash for purchase of machinery parts from Railway Road, Saharanpur. The firm had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DIT(Inv- 1) /132-A/MRT/2019-20/651 (copy enclosed) dated 24.03.2020 from DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1, Meerut, wherein it is stated that a warrant of authorisation u/s 132A was issued by PDIT(Inv.) Kanpur and cash amounting Rs. 5,65,000/- was seized belonging to Sh. Inder Pal Bansal S/o Sh. Chhaju Ram Bansal, R/o A-2, New Multan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and his concern M/s Bansal Enterprise. Further, in the appraisal report, it was suggested to cover the cases of Sh. Inder Pal Bansal (PAN-AEJPB0943E) u/s 153A and the case of M/s Bansal Enterprise (PAN-AADFB8735A) u/s 153C. As per the provisions of Section 153B, the Assessing officer shall made an order of assessment or reassessment, in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A within a period of twenty -one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisation for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed. Therefore, the afore-mentioned assessment are to be passed by 31.12.2020. However, as per the press Release dated 24.06.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. The fact that the AO had no jurisdiction to make assessment over the assessee is further established when on the proposal from the AO to transfer the jurisdiction of the case of the assessee and M/s. Bansal Enterprises was transferred by the PCIT vide order dated 19.02.2021 u/s. 127 of the Act to the Central Circle-30, Delhi. Thus, from the fact of the case it emerges that the notice issued by the AO u/s. 143(2) of the Act was without jurisdiction. 10. Here it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced here in below:- (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or] under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or ^62[sub-section (2) of section 115WE or] subsection (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the jurisdictio....