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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1307/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 July 2022AY 2010-112 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice suffered from a lack of jurisdiction, rendering all subsequent proceedings invalid. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer issued a Section 148 notice for reopening the assessment. However, the jurisdiction for issuing this notice was with an officer who, according to transfer records, had no jurisdiction over the assessee's case.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening proceedings due to the Assessing Officer's lack of jurisdiction when issuing the Section 148 notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Shirude
For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Hearing: 26.07.2022Pronounced: 27.07.2022

PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nashik’s order dated 25.06.2019 passed in case no.Nsk/CIT(A)-2/152/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

I first of all come to the former issue of validity of the impugned reopening for want of the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction. 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 jurisdiction 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 jurisdiction in assessee’s case. Meaning thereby that it’s section 148 notice setting into motion the impugned reopening suffered from lack of jurisdiction 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.

3.

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.

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT(A)-2, Nashik.

4.

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.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →