TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2019-20 declaring a total income of Rs. 36,89,750/- which was duly assessed. Subsequently, the Ld. AO received an information emanating from survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A by tax authorities in the case of M/s Shree Kapishwar Steels and M/s Hanuman Steels revealing that the assessee had made bogus purchases during the relevant year. Taking into account this information, the Ld. AO issued notice dated 28.03.2023 u/s 148 and re-opened assessee's case. During proceedings, the assessee filed documents and insisted that the purchases made by him was genuine. However, the Ld. AO rejected assessee's submissions and ultimately made two additions, namely (i) addition of Rs. 1,97,076/- on account of bogus purchases and (ii) profit of Rs. 23,649/- on account of estimated commission paid for arranging bogus purchase. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first appeal but did not get any success. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in present appeal before us. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds: Original grounds in Form No. 36: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsideration of any fresh evidence, and can be adjudicated on the basis of material already available on record. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), Ld. AR submitted that the additional ground is admissible. Ld. DR for Revenue opposed the admission of additional grounds but, however, could not controvert the submissions made by Ld. AR. After a careful consideration, we find merit in the submissions of Ld. AR for assessee. Since the additional ground is legal in nature, goes to the root of the matter, does not require consideration of any fresh evidence, and can be adjudicated on the basis of material already available on record, we admit the same and proceed to adjudicate in subsequent paras. 6. On merit of additional ground, Ld. AR for assessee made a straightforward submission. He referred CBDT's Instruction No. 1/2011 [F.No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] dated 31.01.2011 and Instruction No. 6/2011 [F.No. 187/12/2010-ITA-I] dated 08.04.2011, copies filed in Paper-Book, and contended that the jurisdiction to assess the present assessee was vested in AC/DC and not in ITO since the (i) assessee is a n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. Chintamani v. Dingankar, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jamnagar having jurisdiction over the petitioner. I submit that at the relevant point of time, the PAN of the petitioner was lying with the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jamnagar as he was holding territorial jurisdiction over the case and therefore, the impugned notice came to be issued by the ITO, Ward 2(2) as the PAN could not be migrated at the last moment to the DCIT, Circle-2. But as the income of the assessee was more than Rs. 15 lakh, the DCIT/ACIT, Cir-2, Jamnagar held the jurisdiction over the case as per CBDT Instruction. The notice u/s. 148 was required to be issued by 31/03/2018 and the migration of the PAN was not possible in that short period. It is pertinent to mention that as per the prevailing scheme of e-assessment, the assessment was required to be made as e-Assessment and all the correspondences/notices needed to be done online through the ITBA application as the such correspondences/notices then goes to the e-filing account of the assessee which enable the assessee to respond through his/her e-filing account. As the PAN was lying in the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(2)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice, any inherent defect therein cannot be cured under section 292B of the Act. A notice under section 148(1) of the Act would be a valid notice if the jurisdictional Assessing Officer records the reasons for reopening the assessment as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 148 and thereafter the same officer namely the jurisdictional Assessing Officer issues the notice under section 148(1) of the Act. In the facts of the present case, while the reasons for reopening the assessment have been recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer viz. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2, Jamnagar, the impugned notice under section 148(1) of the Act has been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jamnagar who had no jurisdiction over the petitioner, and hence, such notice was bad on the count of having been issued by an officer who had not authority in law to issue such notice. As a necessary corollary it follows that no proceedings could have been taken under section 147 of the Act in pursuance of such invalid notice. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned notice under section 148(1) of the Act as well as all the pro....