| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3498 (Chd-Trib) : (2020) 207 TTJ 1041 : (2020) 081 ITR (Trib) 0454 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 148
Where AO to whom case was transferred did not have any jurisdiction over the assessee and, as such, notice under section 148 by AO being without jurisdiction was not valid and though assessee was a non-resident Indian, was duly mentioned to previous AO, later AO continued to proceed with the re-assessment and issued notices under section 148, since no notice under section 148 was issued by CIT (International Taxation) who was authorized to issue the notice to assessee, therefore, the very reopening of assessment without issuance of notice under section 148 by AO of the competent jurisdiction, was bad in law.
|
Reassessment - Non-issuance of notice under section 148 by Dy. CIT (International Taxation) - Transfer of jurisdiction of AO -
As per the AIR information, there was a substantial deposit in bank account of the assessee and was asked to explain about the said transactions of the deposits in the bank account. Assessee submitted that he was NRI person living in USA for the last 30 years and that his family was residing in India and he was sending money to his wife and mother. Thereafter, ITO transferred the case of assessee to another ITO who issued a notice stating that he had reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and thereby reopen the case of the assessee under section 147. Assessee filed a letter to ITO along with copies of the passport, PAN and PR card of assessee, reflecting his PR status in USA. Assessee supplied all the necessary details along with the evidence to prove that assessee was a permanent resident of USA. Thereafter, DCIT (International Taxation) proceeded to make the assessment in question. Since assessee did not participate in the proceedings, order was passed under section 144 ex-parte of the assessee making addition of the sum as income from undisclosed sources. Held: ITO to whom case was transferred did not have any jurisdiction over the assessee and, as such, notice under section 148 by the ITO being without jurisdiction was not valid. Though assessee was a non-resident Indian, was duly mentioned to previous ITO and the entire record along with reply of assessee was transferred to another ITO apart from that previous ITO also was informed that assessee was a permanent resident of USA, ITO continued to proceed with the re-assessment and issued notices under section 148. ITO had no jurisdiction to initiate reopening of the assessment by way of issuance of notice under section 148. Admittedly, Dy.CIT (International Taxation) who was competent to issue the notice under section 148 did not issue the same. Therefore, the very reopening of assessment without issuance of notice under section 148 by AO of the competent jurisdiction, was bad in law.
Relied:Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh v. CIT & Anr. (1996) 89 Taxmann.com 536 (P&H) : 1996 TaxPub(DT) 1020 (P&H-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|