FARROKH P MISTREE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (3)(1), MUMBAI

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of hearing: 12.08.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date of pronouncement: 29.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R एस रयपऔय यहभान, रेखा सदस्म के द्वाया / PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A)-57, Mumbai dated 30.08.2019 and pertains to Assessment Year 2006-07. Farrokh P. Mistree; AY 06-07 2. At the time of hearing, assessee filed the additional grounds of appeal before us with the plea that it is relevant to disposal of this appeal and it does not involve in any investigation of new facts, in this regard he relied on the decision of National Thermal Power Corporation 229 ITR 383 (SC). Since there is no objection from Revenue side and issue involved is relevant which goes to the route of the case, we hereby proceed to dispose off the additional grounds of appeal. The additional grounds filed by the assessee is reproduced below:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer has failed to intimate the Appellant reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act which is a jurisdictional requirement although specific request was made to furnish the said reasons in terms of Appellant's 29th letter dated March, 2013 and therefore, the assessment order is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court decision in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) and GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. vs. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC).

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, since the notice issued under section 148 relates to expiry of the period of four years from the relevant assessment year, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in taking the sanction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Pr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Farrokh P. Mistree; AY 06-07 Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner which is a jurisdictional defect. Reliance is placed on the decision of CIT Vs. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223 Delhi.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant, being a non-resident, the Assessing Officer has erred in assuming jurisdiction of the Appellant's case despite the fact that there was a transfer order being Order No. 4002598444 dated 6th January, 2014 from the Commissioner of Income Tax 19, Mumbai specifically directing the Assessing Officer to transfer the case to the jurisdiction of ITO (INT.) 4(1), Mumbai.”

3. At the time of hearing, Ld AR vehemently argued only on the ground no. 1 of additional grounds and other grounds were not argued, therefore, we will deal only the ground No.1 and other grounds are kept open.