SHRI RAMESH MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 646/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Sept 2019AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Mishra V. Dy. Cit 5/863, Viram Khand Range-6 Gomti Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Agjpm3967B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow, Dated 29/8/2018, Confirming The Assessing Officer’S Action In Making The Addition Of Rs.3.45 Lakhs, Comprising Of Rs.3.15 Lakhs Paid As Stamp Duty & Rs.30,000/- Paid In Cash, On Purchase Of A Residential Property. The Following Are The Grounds Raised: 1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The "Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-6, Lucknow (In Short "Dy. Cit"), Was Validly Vested With Jurisdiction Of Assessing Officer In The Case Of The "Appellant" & On That Basis In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2015. 2. Because There Being No Valid Transfer Of Jurisdiction From Income-Tax Officer-1(3), Lucknow To "Dy. Cit", As Per Provisions Of Law, The Reassessment Order Passed By The Latter Was Without Jurisdiction & Consequently The Re-Assessment Order Deserved To Be Held As Illegal. 3. Because Even If It Is Held That The "Dy. Cit" Was Vested With The Jurisdiction Of Assessing Officer In The Case Of The "Appellant"
For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148
37. A Constitution Bench, in Sardar Baldev Singh Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1960) 40 ITR 605 (SC), a pari materia provision, i.e., Section 34 under old Indian
Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1922") was considered and it was held that A.O. having power to issue notice should be a particular A.O. having jurisdiction
