Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reopening was initiated by the ITO, Ward-2(5), Gurgaon, via a notice dated 30th March, 2015.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was consistently assessed by ITO, Ward 72(1), Delhi, indicating that the Assessing Officer in Gurgaon lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, the reopening initiated by the Gurgaon officer was not sustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening initiated by an Assessing Officer without jurisdiction is sustainable in law.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043672937(1), dated 29.06.2022 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the first and foremost legal issue between the parties herein, we note at the outset that it was the learned ITO, Ward-2(5), Gurgaon who had set into motion the impugned reopening vide a notice dated 30th March, 2015 in the assessee’s case.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits in this factual backdrop that the assessee all along is being assessed before the ITO, Ward 72(1), Delhi going by his return filed in response to the aforesaid section 148 notice. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We conclude in this factual backdrop that once the learned Assessing Officer at Gurgaon did not even have jurisdiction to assess the assessee, the impugned reopening initiated in his case is not sustainable in law in very terms. Quashed accordingly. The Revenue’s vehement contentions in support thereof are hereby rejected. All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.