SMT. ZAYADA GHORI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 210/JODH/2017Status: HeardITAT Jodhpur13 October 2023AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 by an officer without jurisdiction renders the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order was liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings, arguing that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a non-jurisdictional Income Tax Officer. The respondent failed to rebut this factual contention.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of a reassessment notice issued by an Income Tax Officer lacking territorial jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR
Hearing: 12.10.2023Pronounced: 13.10.2023

This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jodhpur dated 26.10.2016 in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09 challenging therein the Zayada Ghori v. ITO validity of the jurisdiction of the assessment on account of issue of notice u/s 148 by the non-jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Jodhpur.

2.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Jodhpur was not justified in issuing notice u/s 148 in the present case, because he has no jurisdiction because the jurisdiction on the present case lies with the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Jodhpur. He argued that thus, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the ITO, Ward-3(3), Jodhpur was without jurisdiction, and therefore, the reassessment framed in the case of the assessee is thus void ab-initio.

3.

Per contra, the ld. DR stands by the impugned order, however, he failed to rebut the factual contention raised by the appellant counsel by the assessee that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the non jurisdictional ITO, Ward-3(3), Jodhpur.

4.

We have heard the rival contention, perused the record and the impugned order. Admittedly, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the ITO, Ward-3(3), Jodhpur without having jurisdiction on the present assessee, copy of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, (APB Pg. 11) is reproduced as under:

Zayada Ghori v. ITO 5. It is evident from the assessment record that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the ITO, Ward-3(4), Jodhpur as above which has no jurisdiction over the instant case of the appellant assessee. Consequently, the case was transferred to ITO, Ward-3(4), Jodhpur as per jurisdiction who has passed the assessment order 143/147 of the assessment order dated 05.02.2014 without issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In our view, issuance of notice u/s 148 by the ITO, Ward-3(3), Jodhopur without having jurisdiction over the appellant assessee rendered the assessment proceedings void ab-initio. In view of that matter, the assessment order by the AO liable to be quashed. Our view get supports from the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench on identical facts in the case of the Mukesh Kumar v. ITO in dated 12.06.2015 wherein the Tribunal has quashed the reassessment framed relying on the decision in the case of (i) Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC), (ii) CIT v. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur 41 ITR 421 (SC), (iii) CIT v. Robert 48 ITR 177 (SC) and (ii) CIT v. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 271 (All. HC).

6.

In view of the settled principle of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we quashed the reassessment proceedings, since there was no valid notice

Zayada Ghori v. ITO pursuant to which the reassessment proceedings was made in the instant case. Accordingly, the assessment order framed by the AO is quashed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2023

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →