HASEEB MOHAMMED IQBAL SHAIKH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT TAX 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Assessee has also moved an application dated 13.08.2025 for raising additional grounds which goes to the root of the matter relating to jurisdiction of the officer assumed for invoking the assessment proceeding and passing the assessment order thereafter. Hence, they are admitted. The additional grounds so raised are reproduced for ready reference: 1. The impugned notice u/s. 148 dated 29th March, 2023 is time barred and officer has no jurisdiction to issue the notice.

From the draft order passed u/s. 144C(1), it is noted that ld. AO recorded the factual position of assessee being an individual with non- resident status and thus held that he is an eligible assessee within the meaning of section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. He proposed certain Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh AY 2016-17 variation in respect of the income returned by him and thus passed the draft order for consideration of the assessee to exercise his option as provided in section 144C(2). Matter went before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) who after taking into consideration the submissions, took note of certain undisputable facts based on the material on record which is reproduced in para 10.1 of the final assessment order dated 17.12.2024 passed in conformity with the directions given by ld. DRP. In the said para 10.1, the undisputable fact recorded are that assessee is a NRI that is non-resident Indian during the year under consideration. He had not filed his return for the year under consideration. Ld. AO resorted to reopening action by issuing notice u/s. 148 dated 21.04.2023 against which assessee filed his return of income and replied in pursuance to show cause notice issued which were considered in the assessment proceedings. In the cause title of the impugned assessment order, the status of the assessee is mentioned as “non-resident”. Since there was escapement of income from assessment to the tune of Rs.64,18,104/- case of the assessee was reopened by applying the provisions of section 147 r.w.s.148 for which a notice was issued u/s. 148A dated 11.02.2023. After completing the requirements of section 148A, order u/s. 148A(d) was passed dated 29.03.2023, culminating into issuance of notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2023.

The issue raised by the assessee by filing additional ground no. 2 is that notice issued u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2023 is without jurisdiction since the officer who issued the said notice is Income-tax Officer-Ward 1, Thane who had no jurisdiction over the assessee and therefore the entire proceedings including the impugned notice and the assessment order are bad in law and without jurisdiction. In this respect, from the Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh AY 2016-17 perusal of the notice issued u/s.148A(b) dated 11.02.2023, it is noted that it is from the office of Income-tax Officer-Ward 1(1), Thane. Copy of the same is placed in the paper book at page 1. In response to the said notice, assessee made a written submission dated 09.03.2023 wherein he categorically mentioned in para-1 that his residential status is that of “non-resident” in terms of section 6 of the Act for the year under consideration. He also mentioned his current address being at Unit 2604, A 560 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Australia. Along with this letter, assessee also furnished copies of his passport giving details of entry and exit dates. Subsequent to this, order u/s. 148A(d) was passed considering the case to be a fit case for taking proceedings u/s. 148 r.w.s.147. Thereafter notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2023 was issued which is again from the office of Income-tax Officer-Ward-1(1), Thane. Copy of the said notice is placed in the paper book at page 57. Contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the reopening proceedings have been initiated by an officer who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee.

Subsequent to the invoking of reopening proceedings by issuing notice u/s. 148, the assessment proceedings were completed and the impugned assessment order was passed by the Income-tax Officer (International Tax), Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai, vide order dated 17.12.2024. It is asserted that the jurisdiction over the assessee was always with International Tax, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai who could have issued the notice u/s. 148 by complying with the requirements of section 148A. For this, reference was made to the jurisdictional details downloaded from the portal of the Income-tax Department from the page “know your jurisdictional Assessing Officer” which mentions the jurisdictional details whereby the ‘taxpayer jurisdiction’ specifies ‘International Tax, Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh AY 2016-17 Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai’. Thus, according to the ld. Counsel at the very inception, while assuming jurisdiction for reopening the case of the assessee, the notice has not been issued by the officer having jurisdiction over the assessee, leading to the proceedings and the assessment so made thereunder bad in law and liable to be quashed ab initio. On this legal issue relating to jurisdiction, ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Nimir Kishore Mehta vs. ACIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 553 (Bom) whereby it was held that where an assessee was a non- resident, jurisdiction would lie with Income-tax Officer (International Taxation) and the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s. 148A(b). He also referred to the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Sanand Sankar Das in dated 27.06.2025 where on similar factual pattern, the reassessment proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s. 148 by an officer not having jurisdiction over the assessee was quashed and held in favour of the assessee.

Per contra, ld. Sr. DR referred to provisions contained in section 124 to submit that assessee did not raise any objection in the entire reassessment proceedings and hence is precluded from raising this legal issue at the appellate stage.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the legal issue raised by the assessee through additional ground. The factual position as discussed above is undisputed. Assessee is a non-resident and the jurisdiction was with Income-tax Officer (International Tax) Ward- 4(2)(1)1, Mumbai. The impugned assessment order has also been Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh AY 2016-17 passed by the same officer having jurisdiction over the assessee which is dated 17.12.2024 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13). In the said impugned assessment order, ld. AO has reproduced the discussion and directions of ld. DRP which mentions about undisputed facts relating to the status of the assessee being non-resident. However, the factual position states that the notice u/s. 148A(b) was issued by the office of Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thane against which assessee had made his submissions specifying his status as non-resident and also furnished copies of passport along with entry and exit dates. After completing the compliance requirements of section 148A, the same officer, that is, Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thane issued notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2023 after which the assessment proceedings were undertaken and the impugned assessment order was passed not by the said officer but by the officer having jurisdiction over the assessee, that is, Income- tax Officer(International Tax),Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai. We thus note that it is not a case of the Revenue where the Assessing Officer was not aware of the correct status of the assessee being non-resident.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.