TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10190527 has erred in passing order dtd. 20.05.2024 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of Ld. AO in initiating, continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 148 r.w.s. 147/144 and hence the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed. 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 31,99,224/- made by Ld. AO by erroneously holding the payment received as interest income. 4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atisfied in this case. 3. The assessee could not file any reply in proceedings since he is an NRI and was not in India when the proceedings were ongoing. He was not aware of the ongoing proceedings. Even the passing of assessment order never came to his knowledge in time. It is only on his recent visit to India that he came to know about the fact of passing of assessment order. He then engaged a counsel and filed this appeal. The Ld. AO completed the impugned assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 14.03.2022. All the above facts and circumstances goes to show that the entire proceedings had been conducted at the back of the appellant. 4. While framing the assessment, Ld. AO erred in concluding assessment u/s 144 witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question. Before reopening of the case u/s 147 the Ld. AO did not make any enquiry. No Notice or Summon U/s 133(6) or 131(1A) was issued to the company to ascertain the nature of transaction entered, to check whether the said payment was in the nature of income or not. The reopening was made on mere suspicion arising from above said information. 3. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) were issued by the Ld. AO but no such notices were served upon assessee as notices were addressed at the Indian address of the assessee even when assessee is residing outside India for more than 25 years. It is an important fact that the Ld. AO also got the information about the interest received from the SBI bank. The bank already had informatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the Ld. AO on the back of assessee by passing ex- parte order u/s 144 on 14.03.2022. 7. The above reopening is bad in law and it deserves to be declared void-ab-initio 6. The ld. Counsel accordingly requested that the assessment order dated 14.3.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer should be quashed. 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the order of the CIT(A). 8. The ld. CIT(A) on this issue has given his findings as under :- 6.5 The appellant in his ground of appeal no. 1 assailed the AO in initiating the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act and stated that the assessment order may be quashed as the notice were not served. The submission of the appellant is examined. On the one hand the appellant is stating tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 25 years. The Counsel further argued that Form 26AS clearly shows that the TDS was deducted u/s 195 of the Act so the A.O. cannot claim that he was not aware of the residential status of the Assessee. Therefore, in spite of these facts in the knowledge of the Assessee, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 147 of the Act to a non-resident Indian which is illegal in nature. Thus, the Counsel argued that the notice issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer to an NRI as a invalid notice. We have also considered the following case laws brought on record by the Counsel of the Assessee in the cases of - Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra vs. Union of India ( Writ Petition No. 513 of 2019) (High Court Bombay) Pr. CIT-1 vs. Alt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich clearly and categorically say that a notice issued by a non -. resident jurisdictional Assessing Officer and later on assessment made on that notice are invalid. Here, in this case, despite the fact that the Assessing Officer had access to the information that the Assessee was an NRI, still then instead of transferring the case to the International Taxation Division, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e., ITO Ward-3(1), Ferozepur, issued the notice while he had no jurisdiction over the NRI Assessee's for issuing of notice. Later on, the assessment was also completed by the Assessing Officer NFAC, Delhi during the assessee's residential status as a Resident. It is clear from the assessment passed on 14.3.2022. Assessee is a ....