| The Tax Publishers2022 TaxPub(DT) 5175 (Jp-Trib) : (2023) 198 ITD 0032 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 147
Notice issued under section 148 issued by AO, having no jurisdiction, the assessment order and consequent proceedings were void ab initio and deserve to be annulled as defect in the order was not curable and it could not be rectified even by sending the matter back to the concerned officer.
|
Reassessment - Validity - Notice issued under section 148 by AO having no jurisdiction over assessee -
Assessee filed his return of income on 26-6-2010 declaring total income at Rs.1,58,540 proceedings under section 147 were initiated after recording reasons by a Non-jurisdictional AO (ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur) who had also obtained sanction under section 151 from the Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur and issued notice under section 148 on 8-3-2017. After realizing jurisdiction error, the reopened case was transferred by ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur to ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur. Assessee challenged validity of reassessment pleading that reasons were recorded and notice under section 148 was issued by AO having no jurisdiction over the case of assessee. Held: Notice issued under section 148 issued by AO, having no jurisdiction, the assessment order and consequent proceedings were void ab initio and deserve to be annulled as defect in the order was not curable and it could not be rectified even by sending the matter back to the concerned officer.
Relied:Dushyant Kumar Jain v. Dy. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 428 (Del-HC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1143 (Del-HC) and Satish Kumar Khandelwal v. ITO (2021) 61 Tax World 71 (Jpr) : 2021 TaxPub(DT) 2340 (Jp-Trib).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2010-11
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. & RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, A.M.
Mukesh Kumar Agarwal v. ITO
ITA No. 321/JP/2021 & 152/JP/2022
27 July, 2022
Assessee by : G.M. Mehta, CA
Revenue by : Monisha Choudhary, Jt. CIT
Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, A.M.
Both these appeals are filed by the assessee against two different orders of Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 30-10-2021 and 15-3-2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ) for the assessment year 2010-11 under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act and penalty order under section 271E of the Income Tax Act. Since both these appeals pertain to an assessee mentioned hereinabove, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity of the case the Bench decides to pass a consolidt. order.
2.1 First of all, we take up the grounds of appeal of the assessee for adjudication in ITA No. 321/JP/2021 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee.
1. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining addition of Rs.36,662 on basis of wrong and misleading finding of the assessing officer that the sale of immovable property by the assessee himself and not in capacity as Power of Attorney of one Shri Prahlad Singh for sole reason that the Power of Attorney Executor could not be produced after a gap of about eight years.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|