LILADHAR RAMCHANDRA PATIL,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (5),, JALGAON

I first of all come to the former issue of validity of the impugned reopening for want of the Assessing Officer’s juri iction. There is hardly any dispute that the ITO, Ward-2(4), Jalgaon had issued section 148 notice to the assessee after recording the corresponding reasons on 30.03.2017. This followed transfer of assessee’s assessment juri iction from the above stated authority to 2 ITO, Ward-1(5), Jalgaon w.e.f. 28.06.2020. A perusal of the case records reveals that the said transfer proposal (page 10 in assessee’s paper book running into 214 pages) suggests that the former authority hereinabove had no juri iction in assessee’s case. Meaning thereby that it’s section 148 notice setting into motion the impugned reopening suffered from lack of juri iction rendering all subsequent proceedings as invalid. I thus quote (2017) 396 ITR 167 (Gujarat) Shirishbhai H. Sanjanwala vs. ACIT to quash the impugned reopening for this precise reason alone. The Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the same stand rejected. The assesse succeeds in the instant appeal. All other pleadings on merit are rendered academic.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 27th day of July, 2022. (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; "दनांक / Dated : 27th July, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

The Pr. CIT-2, Nashik. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब"च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.