MOHD. IMRAN,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD-3(2), BULANDSHAHR

On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee is primarily challenging the impugned orders on the basis of alleged wrongful assumption of juri iction u/s 147 of the Act. 3. Although the ld. DR has defended the assumption of juri iction, what we find is that in the reasons recorded for reopening, the copy of which is available at pages 33-34 of the paper book, the AO has mentioned the fact that the return of the assessee which was filed on 14.01.2011 was examined to conclude that the same did not have the explanation of the assessee of the alleged cash transactions reported in AIR information. 4. Now, as a matter of fact, for the impugned assessment year 2010-11, the return has been filed on 24th March, 2011 and not on 14.01.2011. At the same time, it is established that the return filed on 14.01.2011 pertained to the AY 2009-10. The copy of acknowledgement is available at page 35 of the paper book and the ld. AR has sufficiently established on the basis of the certified copy of the same available at page 36 of the paper book that vide receipt No.0301026942, the assessee’s return for AY 2009-10 was filed on 14th January, 2011. Thus, where the reasons as recorded reveal that the return for the relevant year 2010-11 was not even taken cognizance of, then, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there was utter non-application of mind in recording the reasons and even the approval so granted. The reasons are not only narration of information, but, on its face reflect non application of mind. Where a fact so important as to which return of the assessee was considered is 3