2026 (7) TMI 799

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 06.10.2022 declaring total income at Rs. 16,94,410/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of purchases and sale of Iron goods under the sole proprietorship Firm namely M/s Shri Ram Steels Syndicate. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act on 02.02.2022 in the case of Sakarni Group and Ors. and the assessee was also covered. During the search, cash and jewellery were found and seized from the possession of assessee. Thereafter, the notices u/s 143(2) was issued on 23.06.2023 and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, the AO has made additions of Rs. 67,00,000/- being cash found during the course of search as unexplained money u/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her hand, the Ld. CIT-DR strongly opposed the additional ground of appeal and submits that in the instant case, the additional ground of appeal requires verification on the part of the AO and, therefore, the said ground of appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication at this stage. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Since, the additional ground of appeal taken by the assessee before us under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules is with respect to the assuming the jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer without having jurisdiction in terms of CBDT Instruction 01/2011 dated 31.01.2011 and, accordingly, goes to the root of the matter, therefore same is hereby admitted for adjudication. It is further observed that no v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'ble Bombay High court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain Vs. Union of India. And by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shree Shoppers Ltd in ITAT/39/2023 IA No.GA/1/2023 dated 15.3.2023. 9. The coordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sapna Rastogi Vs. ITO reported in 2024 (8) TMI 1517 (ITAT, Delhi) has held the reassessment order as invalid as the notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO having no jurisdiction over the assessee. The relevant observations are as under: 5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and the submissions. The assessee had filed a return of income on 07.07.2013 declaring the total income at Rs. 18,85,550/-. The assessee is an individual and, taking into consi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t order is vitiated. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT-II, Lucknow vs. Mohd. Rizwan, Proprietor M/s M.R. Garments, in ITA No. 1000/2015, order dated 30.03.2017 has examined this aspect on the basis of numerous judicial pronouncements and while considering the question, if the notice u/s 148 of the Act, issued by an authority not having jurisdiction, would be valid by referring to section 292BB of the Act, has held that jurisdiction can neither be waived nor created even by consent and even by submitting to jurisdiction, an assessee cannot confer upon any jurisdictional authority, some which he lack inherently. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has decided this issue against the Revenue holding that notice u/s 148 is not a ....