ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. ALKA DASS, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6755/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 September 2017AY 2008-094 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to the issuance of notices under Section 148 by an officer without jurisdiction. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which held the assessment order to be null and void. The CIT(A) based this decision on the fact that notices under Section 148 were issued by an Assessing Officer who lacked jurisdiction over the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether reassessment proceedings initiated by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction were valid. The Tribunal also considered whether the assessee had challenged the jurisdiction during assessment proceedings.

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(2)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, DELHI BENCHES ‘B’ DELHI

Before: SHRI P.K.BANSAL & SH. AMIT SHUKLA

Hearing: 21.09.2017Pronounced: 21.09.2017

PER P.K.BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT This appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 15.09.2014 of the CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2008-09 by taking the following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The decision of Ld.CIT(A)’s order is not acceptable on the merits in the assessment year 2008-09.

1.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking consideration of facts that proper procedure for reopening has been taken.

3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not taking into consideration of facts that the assessee nowhere challenged the issue of reopening/jurisdiction before

ACIT-33(1), New Delhi during assessment proceedings, the case law on which the Ld.CIT(A) has relied are having different connotations and that does not fit in the case.”

2.

No one was appearing on behalf of the assessee even though the notice has been sent.

3.

We heard the rival submissions and going though the order of the tax authorities below, we noted that the CIT(A) held the assessment order to be null & void. In view of the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Living Media India Ltd. 359 ITR 106 (2013) [Del.] and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT in 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) [2011] by observing as under:-

6.1. “The ACIT, Range-IV, Lucknow after getting satisfied with the appellant's contention that she had not jurisdiction over the appellant, transferred the reassessment proceedings. This action of the ACIT, Range-IV, Lucknow basically strengthens the appellant's contention that the assessment proceedings in consequence to the notices u/s 148 of the ACIT, Range-IV, Lucknow are void ab-initio as the notices u/s 148 were issued by the ACIT, Range-IV, Lucknow which had no jurisdiction over the appellant. In view of above cited decisions, needless to place reliance on other case laws, it is held that the AO, New Delhi is not justified in completing the reassessments in case of the appellant for the relevant AYs in pursuance of the notices u/s 148 which had been issued by the ACIT, Range-IV, Lucknow because the ACIT, Range-IV, Lucknow is held to have no jurisdiction on the appellant on the date of issuance of such notices u/s 148.

6.2 Further, the above cases are also analyzed from different angle also. The AO issued notices u/s 148 for these AYs on the reasoning that the appellant had made substantial investments in immovable properties in these years; which prima-facie appeared unexplained; thus, the income to the extent of the investments made in the immovable properties in the relevant years had escaped assessments. Pursuant to the appellant's explanations, the AO did not make any addition for which these assessments were reopened. The appellant’s case of these two years are held squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Living Media India Ltd.; 359 ITR 106 and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 336 ITR 136 and therefore, following these decisions, it is held that the reassessments, prima-facie, are not in accordance with the above judicial pronouncements.

6.3. In view of above, the appellant’s reassessments in the above two AYs are held to be null and void. Accordingly, the impugned orders are annulled.”

4.

Ld. DR even though relied on the order of the AO but could not convince us that how the findings given by the CIT(A) are illegal and not covered by the jurisdiction of the High Court. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT(A).

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 21 September, 2017.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →