PANDURANGA CHARY ACHI,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD

Coming to the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned re-opening for want of the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction, it emerges at the outset that from a perusal of the assessment findings in the Assessing Officer’s order dt.13.11.2009 (Para 2 Page 3) that it was the ITO(IT-2), Hyderabad, who had formed his reopening reasons alleging escapement of taxable income from being assessed vide notice u/s 148 dt.27.03.2019. It is an admitted fact that he himself transferred the case file to ITO (IT-1),Hyderabad, who ultimately framed the impugned re-assessment. All the clinching facts make it clear that the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction to assess the assessee herein i.e. ITO (IT-I), Hyderabad had nowhere recorded his reopening reasons to believe that the assessee’s taxable income is liable to be assessed has escaped assessment. That being the case, I find merit in assessee’s stand that the reopening reasons have not been formed by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction in his case which renders the entire proceedings invalid. It ordered accordingly. The impugned re-opening is quashed for this precise reason alone. All other pleadings on merits are rendered infructuous.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.