Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's case for AY 2012-13 was reopened under Section 147/148 based on bank deposits and share transactions. The assessee filed a belated return. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO and that the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) was not issued. These procedural lapses render the assessment proceedings void ab initio.
Key Issues
1. Whether the reassessment proceedings are invalid due to issuance of notice u/s 148 by a non-jurisdictional AO. 2. Whether the assessment is vitiated due to non-issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) before completion of assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 143(2), 292BB, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, SMC JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Addl. / JCIT(A)-11, Delhi dated 28-03-2025 for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the reason to belief has been framed and notice u/s 148 issued by the Ld. ITO-Ward-5(3). The jurisdictional AO was ITO, Ward-5(1) Jaipur. In accordance to settled law, the reasons to be framed only by jurisdictional assessing officer and not by any other assessing officer and issuance of notice u/s-148 of the Act is mandatorily to be issued by jurisdictional A.O. Thus, the notice issued by the Ld. AO and the assessment proceedings concluded thereafter by the SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR Ld. AO was illegal and non-curable u/s-292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the Assessment Order dated 07.11.2019 deserves to be set aside and quashed.
2. Without prejudice to the GOA-1, in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned A.O. has erred in holding the mistake of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) before completion of assessment u/s 143(3) r.ws. 147 as non-curable u/s 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Without prejudice to the GOA-1 to 2, "that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in completing the assessment without issuing any final show cause notice and without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The assessment order passed is vitiated and liable to be quashed as it suffers from illegality and procedural infirmity."
4. Without prejudice to the GOA-1 to 3, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of cash deposits duly explained by the assessee regarding their nature and source, without properly appreciating the evidences furnished and without rebutting the explanation with any contrary material; the addition being arbitrary, excessive, and in violation of principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed.’’ Brief facts of the case are that as per ITS data, it came to the knowledge of 2.1 the Department that the assessee had deposited Rs.8.00 lacs in Bank of Baroda and State Bank of India maintained in assessee’s name. It is noted by the Department that the assessee had also carried out share commodity transactions to the tune of Rs.53,25,750/- and failed to show the resultant profit on it. In this case, the assessee had not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 and hence the case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act with the request to submit ITR. The return for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed on 21-09-2019 declaring income of Rs.2,28,130/-. The case was assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR 7-11-2019 at a taxable income of Rs.2,28,130/- after making addition of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in Bank account.
2.2 In first appeal, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:-
‘’3. The appellant submitted reply in response to this office notice u/s 250 of the Act in support of grounds of appeal. Reply of the appellant is considered. The grounds of appeal, AO's observation and the decision taken point-wise are discussed in detail below (a) First ground of appeal is regarding issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The matter has been examined on the basis of factual position as per law and material available on records. The appellant regularly attended the scrutiny proceedings by way of submitting/uploading documents before the Assessing Authority. Further, it is also seen that the assessee never raised this issue before the Assessing Authority, otherwise the same will be disposed off during the assessment proceedings. Now, at this stage, it is not fair to discuss the jurisdictional issue and hence, this ground of appeal has no force and requires no further comments. Ground of appeal on point of the appellant is dismissed. (b) The next ground of appeal is regarding non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before completion of assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act. On perusal of assessment order, it is clearly mentioned by the AO in connection with the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Hence, this issue of the appellant is not correct. Hence, Ground of appeal on this point of the appellant is dismissed. (c) The appellant submitted that reason to believe framed by the AO for issuing notice u/s 148 was on suspicion only without considering facts of the case and application of mind. The turnover of shares transaction as stated in notice was Rs. 53,25,750/- whereas after verification and on assessment the admitted turnover was Rs. 4,35,055/- and there was a loss instead of profit as claimed by the Ld. AO. The cash deposit was from previous withdrawal only. The notice issued by the Ld. AO was illegal and deserves to be SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR quashed or set-aside. On verification of records, this fact has duly been mentioned in the assessment order and no addition was made on this account in the determined taxable income. Hence, as stated by the appellant, the assessee during the financial year under consideration was involved in share transaction. The assessing authority has to verify the genuineness and creditworthiness of the information gathered/received and in this case the same rule was followed by the Assessing Officer, verification was properly made resulting came to a conclusion that there was a loss in place of income. And, further, it is pertinent to mentioned here that no addition was made on this account while determining the taxable income as per assessment order. Quashing or making set-aside the assessment on this ground by the appellant is not tenable. Therefore, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. (d) As per next ground, the appellant submitted that the addition to income made by Ld. A.O. is illegal despite the fact that the assessee has made withdrawal from his own account and do not have any other source of income. The Ld. A.O. has failed to establish that in absence of any other source of income and there is withdrawal from account how other income is earned. The action of the Ld. AO, is not as a quasi judicial authority and therefore illegal and deserves to be quashed. During the course of assessment proceedings, this fact was earlier submitted before the Assessing Officer by the appellant and the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the argument and made addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in Bank Account. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and materialavailable on records, I donot find any infirmity in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act for the Asstt. Year 2012-13 dated 07-11-2019 and the Scrutiny order passed by the Assessing Officer is confirmed and ground of appeal of the appellant on this issue is rejected (e) In next ground of appeal the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned A.O. has completed the assessment without providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessment made by the Ld. AO is illegal and deserves to be quashed. On perusal of records, it is found that the appellant submitted Income Tax Return in response of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 21-09-2019 and notices u/s 143(3) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act on 24-09-2019 i.e quickly by the Assessing Officer without wasting of time by which the assessee was required to submit details and documentary evidences as per law to verifythe SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions made by the appellant during the financial year under consideration. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act on 07-11- 2019. The AR of the assessee is well aware about the burden of time barring cases in the month of November and December Date of first notice in this case was 24-09-2019 and the assessment was completed on 07-11-2019. In my opinion, the assessee was provided sufficient time to submit the factual position of the case. It is not correct to quash the assessment on this ground as demanded by the Appellant. Keeping in view of the facts of the case and material available on records, I am not convinced that sufficient time was not offered by the Assessing Officer to the appellant in assessment proceedings. Therefore, I reject the ground of the appellant and hence ground of appeal on this point is dismissed. The appellant quoted the judicial judgements, which are considered at the time of passing of this order and the facts of the case under consideration are different
4. The ground of appeal of the appellant are hereby dismissed. Therefore, I donot find any infirmity in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in the case under consideration for the Asstt. Year 2012-13 dated 07- 11-2019 u/s 143(3) r.ws. 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal of the appellant for the Asstt. Year 2012-13 are dismissed.
5. In the result Grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed following detailed written submission with the prayer to quash the assessment order and also delete the addition of Rs.8.00 lacs made by the AO in his assessment order dated 7- 11-2019.
Statement of facts The brief facts of the case are that for the year under consideration the case was opened u/s 148/147 on the basis that for the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited Rs. 8,00,000/- in his bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda and SBI. The details of the notices issued to the assessee were as under: NOTICE ISSUED U/S REMARKS ISSUED RESPONSE DATE submitted SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR 21-09-2019 U/s-148 (DIN:ITBA/AST/S/148/2018- 26-Mar- ITR filed on 21-Sep- 19/1015429895(1)) 2019 2019, by declaring the total income of Rs. 2,28,130/-. U/s-142(1) 30-Sep-2019 24-Sep- Reply submitted on 2019 04-Oct-2019 (DIN:ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019- 20/1018266884(1)) 10-Oct-2019 U/s-147 07-Oct- Reply submitted 2019 on09-Oct-2019 (DIN:ITBA/AST/F/147(SCN)/2019- 20/1018656384(1)) U/s-142(1) 10-Oct-2019 - 07-Oct- 2019 (DIN:ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019- 20/1018657496(1)) U/s-142(1) 14-Oct-2019 11-Oct- Response Submitted 2019 On (DIN:ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019- 20/1018786975(1)) 04-Nov-2019 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/s-143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 07-Nov- 2019. It is pertinent to mention here that the notice u/s-148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2019 by the Ld. ITO-5(3), Jaipur, despite the fact that the jurisdictional officer of the assessee was Ld. ITO-5(1), Jaipur. Further the mandatory issuance of the notice u/s-143(2) was not done by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AO concluded the assessment whereby the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- was made on account of cash deposit in bank account as unexplained source u/s-69 of the Act and passed the Assessment Order u/s-143(3)/147 of the Act vide dated 07.11.2019. During the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted and clarified that during the F.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had withdrawn cash from his bank account for his son’s marriage. But due to some reason marriage didn’t take place and then the cash was redeposited in the bank accounts. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO preferred the appeal before the Hon’ble CIT, (Appeals) on 23.11.2019 which was dismissed on 28.03.2025. Being aggrieved the present appeal is filed before the Hon’ble Bench, ITAT, Jaipur. The humble assessee hereby most humbly submits as under:
On the facts and circumstances of the case the reason to belief has been framed and notice u/s 148 issued by the Ld. ITO-Ward-5(3). The jurisdictional AO was ITO, Ward-5(1) Jaipur. In accordance to settled law, the reasons to be framed only by jurisdictional assessing officer and not by any other assessing officer and SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR issuance of notice u/s-148 of the Act is mandatorily to be issued by jurisdictional A.O. Thus, the notice issued by the Ld. AO and the assessment proceedings concluded thereafter by the Ld. AO was illegal and non-curable u/s-292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the Assessment Order dated 07.11.2019 deserves to be set aside and quashed. The humble assessee in respect of Ground No. 1 submits that the present proceedings were initiated against the assessee by the Ld. ITO-5(3), Jaipur- vide notice u/s-148 of the Act dated 26.03.2019. The notice u/s-148 was issued by non-jurisdictional AO.
For your ready reference, the details of jurisdictional officer as per the Income Tax portal was as under:
A bare perusal of the income tax portal clearly shows that the Ld. AO, 5(3), Jaipur was not the jurisdictional A.O. of the assessee in the assessment proceedings. It is to be noted that the present proceedings were initiated against the assessee by the Ld. ITO-5(3), Jaipur vide notice u/s-148 of the Act dated 26.03.2019 and the “reasons to believe” had been framed by himdespite the fact that the jurisdictional AO was Ld. ITO-5(1), Jaipur. Therefore, under the facts of the case assessment proceedings were initiated and concluded by the non-jurisdictional AO and therefore the Assessment order dated 07.11.2019 was without jurisdiction and illegal therefore the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is noteworthy to mention that it is a settled law that reason to believe framed and notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act by the Assessing Officer having no jurisdiction, the assessment order and consequent proceedings are invalid. The Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Tasleem Bano Vs. The ITO Ward- 5(4) Jaipur decided on 06.05.2025 held in para 3.4 that: 3.4 “We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noticed that the AO, Ward 5(4), Jaipur made an addition of Rs.14,17,300/- in the hands of the assessee on the basis of materials available on record before him. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the Action of the ld. AO as mentioned hereinabove. The issue in this case is that the assessment made by the AO ward 5(4) is valid or not. From the facts of the case, it is noted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the AO ward 5(1), Jaipur and the "reasons to believe" had been framed by/him only which was not a jurisdictional AO. However, subsequent SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR assessment proceedings were completed by the AO ward 5(4), Jaipur vide assessment order dated 03-10-2018. Actually, in the present case, the Jurisdictional AO is 5(2) who was to initiate the proceedings instead of other non-jurisdictional AO's (supra). Hence, in the eye of law the assessment order dated 3-10-2018 passed by the Non-Jurisdictional AO, Ward 5(4) is invalid. This fact is also confirmed by the ld. AO in his report wherein he has stated that "It is worthyto mention that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Jaipur were under the addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Jaipur and the PCIT-2, Jaipur. Thus, the objection filed by the assessee which was forwarded to the ld. AO got confirmed and thus we find force in the contention of the assessee raising the issue of notice about the non-jurisdictional AO. Thus, the assessment order passed in this case is required to be quashed.” The Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. The ITO Ward- 1(2) BharatpurITA NO. 321/JP/2021 held in para 2.7 that: 2.7 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the records, it is noted that the assessee filed his return of income on 26-06- 2010 declaring total income at Rs.1,58,540/- having jurisdiction over the case whereas action u/s 147 of the Act was initiated after recording reasons by a Non- jurisdictional AO (ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur) who had also obtained sanction u/s 151 of the Act from the Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08- 03-2017 (Paper Book Page 18). After realizing jurisdiction error, the reopened case was transferred by ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur to ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur. It is also noted from the assessment order wherein Jurisdictional AO had confirmed as under: ‘’The case was received on transfer from ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur on 24-10- 2017 as the jurisdiction over the case lies with the undersigned.’’ It is noteworthy to mention that it is a settled law that notice issued u/ 148 of the I.T. Act by the Assessing Officer, having no jurisdiction, the assessment order and consequent proceedings are invalid. There are so many case laws by various courts, few of which are as under:
1. 1. Dushyant Kumar Jain Vs. Dy, CIT ((2016) 381 ITR 428 (Del): Reassessment; Notice issued by AO having no jurisdiction. Notice u/s. 148 was invalid as being issued by AO other than the one who had jurisdiction over case of the assessee.
2. Satish Kumar Khandelwal Vs. ITO (2021) 61 TAX WORLD 71 (JPR): An order passed by an officer having no jurisdiction to pass such order is void ab-initio and deserves to be annulled. The defect in the order is not curable and it cannot be rectified even by sending the matter back to the concerned officer. Further since the notice u/s. 148 is issued solely on the basis of information received from DIT (I & CI), Jaipur without making any further enquiry and without application of mind, reopening of the assessment is not valid. Therefore, reassessment proceedings consequent to notice issued by non- jurisdictional Assessing Officer is ab-initio void. The Bench feels that there are SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR lapses on the part of the Assessing Authority to decide the jurisdiction of the case. When the case of the assessee fallsunder the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur then as to how the other AssessingOfficer, (ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur having no jurisdiction can issue the notice u/s 148 of theAct. An order passed by an officer without recording reasons has no relevance which is voidab initio and deserves to be annulled. The defect in the order is not curable and it cannot berectified even by sending the matter back to the concerned officer. Further since the notice u/s 148 is issued solely on the basis of information received from DDI, Wing, Jaipur without making any further enquiry and without referring the matter to the Jurisdictional Officer and non-jurisdictional officer has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, therefore, reopening of the assessment is not valid. Hence, the reassessment proceedings consequent to noticeissued by non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer is void-ab-inito. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is quashed. 1.1 It is an established fact in this case that the impugned notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by Ld. AO, Ward 5(3), Jaipur whereas the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in the instant case is Ld. AO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur. It is the Ld. AO, Ward 5(3) who makes a belief to reason for opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, despite the fact that he was not the jurisdictional AO in the present case. 1.2 Section 148 mandates issue of notice before assessment, reassessment or computation of income u/s 147. As per section 148, it is mandatory that the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice required him to furnish a return. The expression “Assessing Officer” used in the section 148 means ‘the Assessing Officer vested with the jurisdiction over the assessee as stipulated in the definition u/s 2(7A), by virtue of the directions / orders passed u/s 120, sub- section (1) & (2)’.Thus, the notice u/s 148 is required to be issued by the Assessing Officer who is vested with the jurisdiction over the assessee on the basis of the criteria of territorial area, a person or classes of persons, income or classes of incomes and cases or classes of cases as enumerated in sub-section 3 of section 120 of Income Tax Act. 1.3 As a matter of fact, PAN of the assessee was under jurisdiction of ITO- 5(1), Jaipur and the said notice was issued by Ld. AO, Ward 5(3), Jaipur. In this case, jurisdiction is vested with the Ld. AO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur based on the territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the notice u/s 148 was not issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Hence, the impugned notice u/s 148 under the Act which was issued by Ld. AO Ward 5(3), Jaipur was without jurisdiction despite the fact that the jurisdictional AO in the present case was 5(1), Jaipur hence it is an invalid notice in the eye of law and assessment order passed by Ld. AO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur pursuant to such notice is void-ab-initio.
1.04 The courts on several occasions have settled the issue of jurisdiction and accordingly, valid jurisdiction is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment under Section 147 of the Act, therefore, the assessment made pursuant to invalid notice is bad in law. The courts have consistently held that the precondition is jurisdiction conferring on the AO to reopen the assessment and their non-fulfilment render the initiation itself ab-initio void.
1.05 The notice prescribed by section 148 cannot be regarded as a mere procedural requirement. It is only if the said notice is served on the assessee that the ITO would be justified in taking proceedings against the assessee. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the ITO would be illegal and void. In support of this proposition, we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble Courts in the cases of:
The Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Mukesh Kumar, New Delhi vs Assessee on 12 June, 2015 (I.T.A. No. -2358/Del/2012) A.Y. 2004-05 has upheld that: “5. We perused the relevant material on record. In the present case the notice u/s 148 was issued on 2nd March 2009 by ITO Ward-26(4) New Delhi. After receipt of notice the appellant had responded through its authorized Representative and submitted the copy of the return filed under provisions of section139. After noticing that the jurisdiction over the appellant is vested with ITO Ward-26(3), the file was transferred by ITO Ward-26(4) to ITO Ward-26(3). The ITO Ward-26(3), New Delhi had proceeded with the framing assessment without issuing fresh notice u/s 148. It means that ITO Ward-26(4), New Delhi had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant, at the time of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In such circumstances, it was held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All.) that the notice issued by an Officer who had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. The notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4) is non-est in the eyes of law since he had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant either territorial as notified under Section 124 of the Act or by transferring the case under the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. Now, the question is whether the action of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(3) New Delhi was valid in law in concluding the assessment proceedings based on the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR 26(4) who had no valid jurisdiction to issue the notice. The issue of valid jurisdiction is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment under Section 147 of the Act; therefore, the assessment made pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this proposition we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); and CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above settled principle of law, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding was made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.” We also rely on the decision of the Hon’ble courts in following cases: a. CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All.) It was held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court that the notice issued by an Officer who had no valid jurisdiction for the assessee is invalid. b. (i) Smt. Smriti Kedia Vs. Union of India and Others, [2011] 339 ITR 37(Cal.) (ii) Indorama Software Solution Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, [2013] 29 taxmann.com 78 (Mumbai) In both cases, the Hon’ble courts have held that “When it is apparent that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO who was not vested with the jurisdiction over the assessee then, the same is illegal and void. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order in pursuant to the illegal notice u/s 148 are also void ab initio and liable to be set aside. Hence, we hold that the reassessment on the basis of an illegal notice u/s 148 is not sustainable and accordingly the same is set aside.” 1.06 The notice prescribed by section 148 cannot be regarded as a mere procedural requirement. It is only if the said notice is served on the assessee that the ITO would be justified in taking proceedings against the assessee. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the ITO would be illegal and void. In support of this proposition we also rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon'ble Courts in the cases of: a) Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); b) CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); c) CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). d) CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) e) CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) f) DR. (MRS.) K.B. Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 131 TTJ (Del)511 SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR g) ITO vs. Krishan Kumar Gupta (2008) 16 DTR (Del)(Trib) h) Ranjeet Singh vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ (Del) 517 i) GkBusinessCentre(P)Ltd. Vs ITO Ward-10(4),I.T.A. No.828/DEL/2020. (j)BalluSingh Vs. ITO, Ward-65(5), New Delhi &800/Del/2020 Hence, the initiation of proceedings by issuing the notice u/s-148 of the Act was not in accordance to law and therefore the whole proceedings initiated becomes null and void ab-initio and therefore the action of the Ld. A.O. requires to be quashed or set aside.
Without prejudice to the GOA-1, in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned A.O. has erred in holding the mistake of non- issuance of notice u/s 143(2) before completion of assessment u/s 143(3) r.ws. 147 as non-curable u/s 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The humble assessee in respect of this GOA submits that the notice- u/s- 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued by the Ld. ITO-5(3) of the Act. The assessee in response to this filed the ITR u/s 148 on 26.03.2019. It is pertinent to mention here that the Ld. AO failed to issue the mandatory compliance of the notice u/s-143(2) of the Act. The screenshot of the e-proceedings portal of the assessee are as under:-
SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR The details of the notices issued to the assessee as reflected on e- proceedings window are also attached herewith (PB No.4-6). From the e-proceeding window of the assessee it is clearly evident that the mandatory compliance of notice u/s-143(2) was not made by the Ld. AO. In the Assessment Order, the Ld. AO stated that the notice u/s-143(2) was issued on 24.09.2019, The assessee hereby confirmed and submitted the affidavit as well that no such notice u/s-143(2) was ever received to the assessee. This fact can be verified through the e-proceedings window screenshots and notice u/s-142(1) dated 24.09.2019 of the Act is also attached herewith (PB No. 7-9). It is important that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued ever to the assessee by the Ld. ITO and in the absence of notice, under Section-143(2), impregnates the proceedings with a jurisdictional defect and, hence, renders it invalid in the eyes of the law. In DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications [2010] 323 ITR 249 (Delhi), thiscourtinvalidated a reassessment proceeding after noting thatthenotice under section143(2) of the Act was not issued totheassessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In otherwords, it was held mandatory to serve the notice under section 143(2)ofthe Act only after the return filed by the assessee Officer. isactuallyscrutinized by the Assessing “The provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act is mandatory and the Legislature in its wisdom by using the word, reason to believe' had cast a duly on the Assessing Officer to apply mind to the material record and after being satisfied with regard to escaped liability, shall serve notice specifying particulars of such claim. In a subsequent judgment in CIT v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.)Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All), it was held as under: “10. Section 292BB of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from April 1, 2008. Section 282BB of the Act provides a deeming fiction. The deeming fiction is to the effect that once the assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated In any enquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under the provisions of the Act, which is required to be served on the assessee, has been duly served upon him in time in accordance with the provisions of the Act The assessee is precluded from taking any objection in any proceeding or enquiry that the notice was (i) not served upon him; or ii) not served upon him in time ; or (iii) served upon him in an improper manner. IN other words, once the deeming fiction comes into SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR operation, the assessee is precluded from raising a challenge about the service of a notice, service within time or service in an improper manner. The proviso to section 292BB of the Act, however, carves out an exception to the effect that the section shall not apply where the assessee has raised an objection before the completion of the assessment or reassessment. Section 292BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement or complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act and in the absence of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the assumption of jurisdiction itself would be invalid.” In the same decision in Salarpur Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (supra), the Allahabad High Court noticed that the decision of the Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon (supra) where in relation to block assessment, the Supreme Court held that the requirement to issue noticeunderSection143(2) was mandatory. It was not "a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with." The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT &Anr Vs Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 229 CTR (SC) 219wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that: "An analysis of this subsection indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under section 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under section 143(3). This section does not provide for accepting the return as provided under section 143(1)(a). The Assessing Officer has to complete the assessment under section 143(3) only. In case of default in not filing the return or not complying with the notice under section 143(2)/142, the Assessing Officer is authorized to complete the assessment ex-parte under section 144.Clause (b) of section 158BC by referring to section 143(2) and (3) would appear to imply that the provisions of section143(1) are excluded.
But section 143(2) itself becomes necessary only where it becomes necessary to check the return, so that where block return conforms to the undisclosed income inferred by the authorities, there is no reason, why the authorities should issue notice under section 143(2). However, if an assessment is to be completed under section 143(3) read withsection158BC, notice under section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of block return. Omission on the part of the assessing authority to SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR issue notice under section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, requirement of notice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with." (emphasis added) 3.6. In absence of valid issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, assessment so framed becomes invalid and void-ab-inito and against the provisions of the law and was not sustainable in the eyes of law. We further place our reliance on the various court decision on the identical matters are mentioned hereunder: 1. ACIT vs. Geno PharmaceuticalsLtd.,[32taxmann.com162](Hon'ble Bombay H igh court), 2. Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd.,vs.ACIT[74taxmann.com239], (Hon‟ble KeralaHigh Court)
3. CIT vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. [370 ITR 87](Hon’ble Madras High Court) 4. CITVs.M/sPanoramaBuildersPvt.Ltd.IntaxappealNo.43 5o f 2011, (Gujrat High Court) 5. CITvs.SukhiniP.Modireportedat(2014)367ITR682(Hon'ble Gujarat High court),
6. CITvs.KMRavjiinTaxAppealNo.771of2010orderdate d 18.07.2011 (Gujarat High Court) 7. CITvsRajeevSharma336ITR678,(HighcourtofAllahabad)
M/sSapthagiriFinanceandInvestmentsvs.ITO:TC(A).No.1 59 of 2006 dated 17.07.2012 (Mad HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289] 9. CITVs.C.Pakniappan284ITR257(Hon'bleMadrasHighCourt)
CITChennaiVs.AlstomT&DIndiaLtd.inTaxCase(Appeals)No. 1183 and 10. 1186 of 2006 dtd. 3.9.2012 (Hon'ble Madras High Court)
SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR 11. ACITCir.2(l),PanajiVs.JenoPharmaceutiealsLtd.inTaxAppeals No.75 to 78 of 2012 dtd. 14.2.2013 (Hon'ble Bombay High court) 12. CITVs.DeepBaruah(2010)329ITR362,(Hon'bleGuhawatiHi ghCourt) 12.a CITVs.SalmanKhaninIncome-tax Appeal (L)No.2362of2009dtd. 1.12.2009 (Hon'ble Bombay High court) 13. RajKumarChawla&OthersVS.ITO-(2005)94ITD1(Del)(SB)
CITvs. Abacus Distribution Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd, orderDated7.02.2017(Bombay High Court) 15. Pr.CITvs.ShriJaiShivShankarTradersPvt.Ltd,orderdat e d 14.10.2015(DelhiHighCourt) ITOv.NasemanFarmsPvt.Ltd.&Ors.InITANo.1175/Del/ 2011, dated 8-4- 16. 2015 17ACITVsM/s.DimensionPromoters(P)Ltd.(ITATDelhi),ITANo. 1105/Del./ 2011 dated 02/01/2018 18. UKTSoftwareTechnologiesPvt.Ltd.Vs.ITOWd- 18(l),NewDelhiin ITANo.5293 & 5294/Del/201O dated. 11.2.2011 19. ITOVs.M/s.StaunchMarketingPvt.Ltd.inITANo. l643/Del/2008 dated 12.5.2015
ITO vs.Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd(ITAT Delhi), order dated 30.03.2017 21. SanjeevAggarwalVs.DCIT,orderdated25.05.2016(Chandigarh ITAT) 22. RajFiles&StationersP.Ltd.v.ITOinITA.No.7553/Mum/ 20 6 dated 05.07.2017 23. M/s. Tiny Girl Clothing Company Private Limited in ITA.No. 3599/Mum/2016 dated 20.12.2017 24. Mehta Emporium Jewellers Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)ITANo.3769/MUM/2016dated15/06/20 18 25. Pankaj Dutta Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata), dated 17/11/2017 26. Shri G.N. MohanRajuv.ITOpassedinITANo.242&243(Bang ) 2013, dated 10-10-2014 Hence, considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements by Hon’ble Apex Court, Various High Courts and Tribunals, the assessment order passed by the Ld. ITO-5(3) without issuing the notice u/s 143(2), Jaipur was illegal and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. Without prejudice to the GOA-1 to 2, "that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in completing the assessment without issuing any final show cause notice and without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The assessment order passed is vitiated and liable to be quashed as it suffers from illegality and procedural infirmity." The assessee do not want to press this GOA.
4. Without prejudice to the GOA-1 to 3, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of cash deposits duly explained by the assessee regarding their nature and source, without properly appreciating the evidencesfurnished and without rebutting the explanation with any contrary material; the addition being arbitrary, excessive, and in violation of principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed. In respect of this ground, it is hereby submitted that the for the considering year the assessee had received the pension from CEMTEX Dept(Ex-employee of SBBJ/SBI) of Rs. 1,40,987/- and in respect of this the assessee had duly submitted during the assessment proceedings. The assessee was not having any other source of income and the deposit of amount in bak account was out of previous withdrawal only. The Ld. A.O on the basis of his own assumption assessed the additional income of Rs. 8,00,000-u/s 69 from the sources not disclosed despite the fact that bank statement and explanations were duly submitted. The details of cash withdrawn (other than routine or house hold withdrawal) and cash deposited in bank statements were as follow:
S. Date of Amount Date of Amount Bank No. Withdrawal (SBI withdrawal Amount Deposited Name Bank) Deposited SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR 1 29.10.2010 2,00,000 2 21.01.2011 5,00,000 3 21.01.2011 1,00,000 (BOB) 4 21.01.2011 1,00,000 27.04.2011 5,00,000 5 01.02.2011 2,00,000 (SBI 6 13.05.2011 2,00,000 01.12.2011 3,00,000 Bank) Total 13,00,000 8,00,000 For your ready reference the bank statement of SBI & BOI are enclosed herewith (PB No. 10 to 16). It is humbly submitted that during the F.Y. 2010- 11, the assessee had withdrawn cash from SBI A/c on above dates for his son’s marriage (Deepak Vijaywargiya) finalised in January 2011 and going to be solemnized in April 2011. Although due to some unforeseen developments the marriage was kept in abeyance and finally the same has been cancelled in the month of November 2011. Therefore the amount withdrawn earlier for marriage purposes has been deposited in the bank account. It is pertinent to mention here that the ld. AO in the assessment order mentioned that- “It is illogical that a person would unnecessarily keep cash over a period of more than a year before depositing it back. If marriage was cancelled, the money could have been deposited at the very first instances. Here, there is a gap of more than seven months in depositing the first part (Rs 5,00,000/- in BOB on 27.04.2011) and the second part (Rs. 3,00,000/- in SBI on 01.12.2011).” In this regard it is humbly submitted that the Ld. A.O did not observe:
1. 1. That the assessee was an ex employee of bank and the monthly pension amount was Rs. 16000/-.
2. The marriage planned to be performed was a low budget and approximate expenditure was estimated at Rs. 10-12 lac which includes food, clothes and jewellery.
3. The cash was needed to finance all these expenditures and therefore withdrawal was made.
4. The reason for deposit in April and December 2011 was well explained earlier paragraphs. After considering the above facts, The Ld. A.O. has grossly erred in considering cash deposit in bank as unexplained investments u/s 69.
As per sec 69 “Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year.” The Hon.’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Neeta Breja (ITA No.524/Del/2017) held that: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, Neeta Breja, by deleting the addition of ₹26,75,100 made under Section 69 for unexplained cash deposits. It held that the Assessing Officer failed to disprove the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits were redeposits of earlier cash withdrawals, and there was no evidence indicating the cash was used elsewhere. The Tribunal found the cash flow statement, bank statements, and other documentation submitted by the assessee as sufficient to explain the source, thus allowing the appeal. Considering the facts of the case it is clearly evident that thehas fully explained the source of cash deposit i.e. out of previous withdrawal only. Further the assessee was not having any other source of income. Thus, considering the facts of the case the provision of section-69 does not apply in the present case, therefore the assessment done by him by the Ld. AO was illegal and void ab initio. PRAYER It, is therefore humbly prayed to consider the reply filed by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the various judgments cited by the assessee in the matter, the Assessment Order dated 07.11.2019 deserves to be quashed and set aside.’’ To support his submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the paper book index whose details are as under:-
S.N. Particulars Page Submitted before No. CIT/AO 1. Notice u/s 148 dated 26-03-2019 issued by the ld. 1 Both ITO-53), Jaipur SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR 2, The details of the Jurisdictional Officer (ITO-5(1), 2 CIT(A) Jaipur) as reflecting on the Income Tax Port of the assessee.
ITR-V of the assessee filed in response to notice u/s 3 Both 148 of the Act 4. The details of the notice issued to the assessee from e- 4-9 Both proceedings window of the Income Tax Portal alongwith chart and notice u/s 142(1) dated 24-09- 2019 5. SBI Bank account statement of the assessee for the 10-15 Both period 01-03-2010 to 31-12-2011 6. Bank of Baroda Accountant Statement of the 16 Both asseessee for the period 01-03-2011 to 15-11-2011 Further the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 24-06-2025 deposing therein as under:- ‘’I Kalyan Ratan Vijay (PAN AARPV 8796 M) S/o Dhanwa Lal Vijay, aged 72 years, resident of 263A,Ist Floor, Katewa Nagar, Near Sanganer Road, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Jaipur do hereby declare on oath and affirm as under:-
1. 1. That I have never received a notice u/s 143(2) dated 24-09-2019.
2. That the details of notices issued and replied by me was as under:-
Notice issued and Dated Replied on Notice issued u/s 148 dated 26- ITR filed on 21 Sept. 2019 by 03-2019 declaring the total income of Rs.2,28,130/- Notice issued u/s 142(1) dated Reply submitted on 04 Oct. 2019 24-09-2019 Notice issued u/s 147 dated 7-10- Reply submitted on 09 Oct. 2019 2019 Notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 7- - 10-2019 Notice issued u/s 142(1) dated Response submitted on04 Nov.
SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR 11-10-2019 2019 3. That during the F.Y. 2010-11, I had withdrawan cash from my SBI A/c on the following dates for son’s marriage (Deepak Vijaywargiya) finalized in January 2011 and to be held in April 2011.
That due to some unforeseen developments that marriage keep on abeyance and finally the same has been cancelled in the month of Nov. 2011.
That I hereby state that the amount deposited in A.Y. 2012-13 were out of the cash withdrawn from the Bank Account. Also, I do not have any other source of income except pension income.
That Ihereby declare that theabove stated defects are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein.’’ 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 2.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noticed that the assessee has assailed the validity of the assessment proceeding primarily on two legal grounds i.e. first that the notice u/s 148 was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer and second that the reassessment was completed without issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act after the return was filed in response to the said notice. Both grounds pertain to jurisdictional lapses which go to the root of the validity of the reassessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Hotel Blue Moon, 321 ITR 362 held that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is a jurisdictional requirement and non- SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR issuance renders the assessment invalid. Further the ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Gayatri Sharma vs ITO, Ward-Bundi inITA No. 461/JP/2018 dated 21-12- 2020 has quashed the assessment order in absence of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The observations so made by the ITAT Jaipur in the case of Gayatri Sharma (supra) are as under:- ‘’12. We also observe that the sanction of the Add. CIT or CIT has neither been taken nor sought nor received by the ITO, also not appearing that there was any satisfaction of the Add. CIT/CIT or Pr. CIT etc. all these are absent on the reason recorded as provided by the AO and the same may be verified from the order sheet and assessment record.
From the record, we noticed that this specific ground was not raised by the assessee before the Id. CIT(A) or before the A.O..Since, this ground is purely legal in nature, therefore, it can be raised by the assessee or any other party contesting the appeal at any point of time or at any stage. In this respect, we draw strength on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 299 ITR 383. We have perused the revenue records as well as assessment records, which was summoned by us and after going through the records, we found that there is no notesheet for issuance or service of notice issued U/s 143(2) of the Act by the revenue and even in the assessment order passed U/s 147/144 of the Act by the A.O., there is no mention of issuance or service of notice U/s 143(2) of the Act. Since, the issue of notice U/s 143(2) of the Act is mandatory and even reassessment proceedings initiated U/s 148 of the Act it has clearly been laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Alpine Electronics Asia PTE Ltd. Vs DGIT & Ors. 341 ITR 247 considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 at para 24 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Court had held that Section 143(2) was applicable to a proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act and since provision to Section 148 of the Act, granted certain specific liberties to the revenue with regard to extension of time for serving such notices. Similar issue has been decided by the Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Mahendra Kumar Sethia Vs ITO(T&J) order dated 31/05/2018 wherein the Coordinate Bench has held as under: 6 Having considered the rival submissions as well as careful perusal of record we note that the Assessing Officer has not stated either in the assessment order or in the order sheets of the assessment proceedings that any notice U/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. Even the assessment record produced before us by the id DR does not contain any notice issued U/s 143(2) of the Act. Thus, it is clear that there is no notice U/s 143(2) of the act issued by the AO and the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee were competed without issuing a notice U/s 143(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR Supreme Court in cose of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon(supra) has held that failure on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice U/s 143(2) cannot be a mere procedural irregularity and the some is not curable. It is not a mere formality but it gives the jurisdiction to the Assessing officer to complete the assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act therefore, non issuance of notice U/s 143(20 vitiates the assessment proceedings. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) as well as the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma (supra) the assessment proceedings completed without issuing notice U/s 143(2) of the act are void ab-initio and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the impugned assessment being illegal and void ab initio. Since, we have quashed the assessment as invalid, therefore, we do not propose to go into other grounds raised
in this appeal. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed."
14. From the record, we also noticed that the A.O. has not stated either in the assessment order or in the ordersheets of the assessment proceedings that any notice U/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. It is clear that there is no notice U/s 143(2) of the Act and reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were completed without issuance of a notice U/s 143(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon (supra) has held that failure on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice U/s 143(2) of the Act cannot be a mere procedural irregularity and the same is not curable. It is not a mere formality but it given the jurisdiction to the A.O. to complete the assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, non-issuance of notice U/s 143(2) of the Act vitiates the assessment proceedings. In view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon (supra) as well as other decisions in this regard cited above, the assessment proceedings completed without issuance of notice U/s 143(2) of the act and void ab-initio and liable to be quashed. The judicial pronouncements referred and relied upon by the Id. DR are not applicable in the facts of the present case. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we quash the proceedings U/s 147/148 of the Act as invalid.
15. Since, we have quashed the proceedings initiated U/s 147/148 of the Act in the present case, therefore, we do not propose to go into other grounds raised in this appeal.
16. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed.’’ It is also pertinent to mention that similar issue was decided by the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Tasleem Bano vs ITO (ITA No. 171/JPR/2025 vide order dated 23-06-2025), in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noticed that the AO, Ward 5(4), Jaipur made an addition of Rs.14,17,300/- in the hands of the assessee on the basis of materials SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR available on record before him. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the ld. AO as mentioned hereinabove. The issue in this case is that the assessment made by the AO ward 5(4) is valid or not. From the facts of the case, it is noted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the AO ward 5(1), Jaipur and the ‘’reasons to believe’’ had been framed by him only which was not a jurisdictional AO. However, subsequent assessment proceedings were completed by the AO ward 5(4), Jaipur vide assessment order dated 03-10-2018. Actually, in the present case, the Jurisdictional AO is 5(2) who was to initiate the proceedings instead of other non-jurisdictional AO’s (supra). Hence, in the eye of law the assessment order dated 3-10-2018 passed by the Non-Jurisdictional AO,Ward 5(4) is invalid. This fact is also confirmed by the ld. AO in his report wherein he has stated that “It is worthy to mention that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Jaipur were under the addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Jaipur and the PCIT-2, Jaipur. Thus, the objection filed by the assessee which was forwarded to the ld. AO got confirmed and thus we find force in the contention of the assessee raising the issue of notice about the non-jurisdictional AO. Thus, the assessment order passed in this case is required to be quashed. We place reliance on the order of the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal vs ITO, Ward 1(2), Bharatpur (ITA No. 321/JP/2021)wherein the Bench at para 2.7 held as under:- ‘’2.7 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the records, it is noted that the assessee filed his return of income on 26-06-2010 declaring total income at Rs. 1,58,540/- having jurisdiction over the case whereas action u/s 147 of the Act was initiated after recording reasons by a Non-jurisdictional AO (ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur) who had also obtained sanction u/s 151 of the Act from the Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08-03-2017 (Paper Book Page 18). After realizing jurisdiction error, the reopened case was transferred by ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur to ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur. It is also noted from the assessment order wherein Jurisdictional AO had confirmed as under- "The case was received on transfer from ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur on 24-10-2017 as the jurisdiction over the case lies with the undersigned." It is noteworthy to mention that it is a settled law that notice issued u/ 148 of the IT Act by the Assessing Officer, having no jurisdiction, the assessment order and consequent proceedings are invalid.’’ We place further reliance of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dushyant Kumar Jain vs DCIT (2016) 381 ITR 428 wherein it was held as under:- ‘’Reassessment; Notice issued by AO having no jurisdiction. Notice u/s 148 was invalid as being issued by AO other than the one who had jurisdiction over case of the assessee.’’ SHRI KALYAN RATAN VIJAY VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench noticed that the notice issued by the AO u/s 148 had no jurisdiction and the assessment order passed by the AO, Ward 5(4), Jaipur has no relevance to apply upon the assessee and the same is treated as invalid in the eye of the law. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.’’ 4.0 Since the issue in question is squarely covered by the above mentioned orders of ITAT, Benches, Jaipur (supra), therefore we allow the appeal of the assessee. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/09/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08 /09/2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Kalyan Ratan Vijay, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- ITO, Ward 5(3), Jaipur. 2. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT 4. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZQkbZy@Guard File { } vkns'kkuqlkj@By order
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत