RAVINDRA KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(5), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 400/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 December 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 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 revenue authorities erred in law and facts by initiating and completing twin assessments against the assessee. It was concluded that the impugned assessment by the Hapur AO was without jurisdiction, given that another AO had already initiated and dropped Section 148 proceedings for the same assessment year. Consequently, the assessment was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an assessment for AY 2012-13 framed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(5), Hapur, alleging twin assessments. Another Assessing Officer, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad, had previously initiated Section 148 proceedings for the same assessment year but dropped them on 30.09.2019, creating a jurisdictional dispute.

What were the issues?

Whether multiple assessments for the same assessment year by different Assessing Officers constitute a jurisdictional error, especially when Section 148 proceedings were previously initiated and dropped by one of the AOs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv.; &, Ms. Tanya, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Siddharth B.S. Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.12.2024Pronounced: 16.12.2024

O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048208393(1), dated 23.12.2022, in case no. CIT(A), Ghaziabad/11344/3019-20, in proceedings u/s 144of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises a very serious issue of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer i.e. learned Income Tax Officer, Ward2(3)(5), Hapur; and that of Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad for assessing the assessee in two separate assessment in assessee’s case.

3.

Learned counsel refers to the assessee’s supporting evidence available in the case file wherein it was the Assessing Officer i.e. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad, who had in fact initiated section 148 proceedings for the very assessment year against him and dropped the same on 30.09.2019. This being the clinching case, which remains unrebutted from the department’s side, it is hereby concluded that the learned revenue authorities have erred in law and on facts in initiating/ completing twin assessments against the assessee and therefore, impugned assessment herein framed in assessee’s case by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(5), Hapur dated 14.12.2019 is quashed. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 16.12.2024.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →