CIT vs. MEHTA BROTHERS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/218/2011HC DelhiDLHC01185228201017 February 2011Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the ITO Jammu under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was indeed without jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment order passed based on this invalid notice was considered a nullity. The reasoning was that the assessee's established assessment jurisdiction lay in Delhi, and the Jammu ITO had no authority to initiate proceedings under Section 148. The Tribunal found that no question of law arose from these facts. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee was consistently assessed in Delhi. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) in Jammu issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee informed the ITO Jammu that they filed returns in Delhi and that the Jammu ITO lacked jurisdiction. Instead of withdrawing the notice or referring the matter to the competent authority in Delhi, the ITO Jammu transferred the assessment records and the Section 148 notice to ITO Ward 31(2), New Delhi. This Delhi ITO then passed a reassessment order based on the notice issued by the Jammu ITO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued by the ITO Jammu under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was without jurisdiction, rendering the subsequent reassessment order a nullity? The assessee contended that the notice was issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction, as the assessee was assessed in Delhi. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-\) o/o L7.O2.2O11 #18 & L9 (Comm-on Order) Counsel for the Present: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing aPPellant. +C.M. Appl. No.1915/2O1 1 in ITA No.217l2O1L ,( Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disPosed of. ITA No.2L7l2OLL & 2L8l2O1L 1. The admitted facts are that the respondent assessee has always been assessed at Delhi. In the instant case, however, notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued by ITO Jammu. After receiving this notice, the assessee specifically brought to the notice of the ITO Jammu that assessee was filing the return of income at Delhi and, therefore, ITO Jammu had no jurisdiction to issue such a notice. On this plea, instead of withdrawing the notice and referring the . matter to the ITO Delhi, which was the competent authority to issue ? such a notice under Section 148 of the Act, the ITO Jammu simply transferred the assessment records with the notice under Section 148 of the Act to lTo ward 31,(2), New Delhi, which passed re-assessment order based on the said notice under Section 148 of the Act. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

2.

We are of the opinion that on the facts of the case, the Tribunal rightly held that the notice issued by lTo Jammu under section 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction, and, therefore, the assessment order passed was a nullity. No question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. () W M.L. MEHTA, J. FEBRUARY L7, ?OLL Dev a

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →