SHRI AADARSH KUMAR KAMTHHAN , LUCKNOW V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

ITA 1033/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4593 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 7216/DEL/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 SMT. ASHA NATH/ ASHA SAXENA, C/O RAJIV SAXENA & CO. ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS 318 POCKET-D, MAYUR VIHAR PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-110091 CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-4, BHARATPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: EPWPS 4522 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 7217/DEL/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 SMT. VEENA SAXENA, D/O SH. JAMUNA PRASAD, B-2/2163, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-4, BHARATPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BFBPS 1191 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 7174/DEL/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 SH. SARVESH KUMAR KAMTHHAN, S/O SH. JAMUNA PRASAD, D-1/1017, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-4, BHARATPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BAFPK 8120 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT ITA NO. 7216, 7217, 7174/DEL/2017 & 1033/JP2017 SMT. ASHA NATH/ASHA SAXENA AND ORS. VS ITO 2 VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 1033/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 SH. ADARSH KUMAR KAMTHAN, C/O DR. MOHAN KAMTHAN SF-T-1, BLOCK 14 CSIR SCIENTIST APARTMENT, ALIGANJ SECTOR K, LUNKNOW-226024. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-4, BHARATPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AEKPK 4773 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPO NDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SAXENA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C.KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/06/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/08/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSEES AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR OF EVEN DATE I.E 25 .10.2017 FOR AY 2008- 09. 2. THE APPEALS IN ITA NO. 7216/DEL/2017, 7217/DEL/2 017 AND 7174/DEL/2017 HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE JAIPUR B ENCHES PURSUANT TO THE ORDER NO. F.2-AD(ATD)/2018 DATED 20.04.2018 PAS SED BY THE HONBLE PRESIDENT, ITAT IN TERMS OF RULE 4 OF THE I TAT RULES, 1963. HENCE, THESE APPEALS ALONG WITH APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1 033/JP/2017 INVOLVING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE HEARD TOGET HER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO. 7216, 7217, 7174/DEL/2017 & 1033/JP2017 SMT. ASHA NATH/ASHA SAXENA AND ORS. VS ITO 3 3. IN ITA NO. 7216/DEL/2017, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS), HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOL DING THE INITIATION OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SE CTION 147 OF THE ACT, WHICH PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED WITH OUT SATISFYING THE STATUTORY PRECONDITIONS AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, AND HENCE INITIATION OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS), HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS THAT INITIAT ION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS), HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TO RS. 3,50,000/- AND BRING ING TO TAX THE AFORESAID SUM U/S 25AA AND 25B OF THE ACT FAILI NG TO APPRECIATE THAT SINCE COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER T HE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS NOT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AS SUCH, SAME BEING NEW SOURCE OF INCOME WAS BEYOND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL AND HENCE ENHAN CEMENT OF INCOME BY THE AFORESAID SUM IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 251 OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH, WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS), HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ISSUING A SPECIFIC SHOW CA USE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT AND HENCE ENHANCEMENT MADE WAS WITHOU T JURISDICTION. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SUM OF RS. 5,00,000/- RELATES TO ITA NO. 7216, 7217, 7174/DEL/2017 & 1033/JP2017 SMT. ASHA NATH/ASHA SAXENA AND ORS. VS ITO 4 MAINLY RENT WHICH COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BECAUSE TH E OWNERS WERE RESIDING OUTSIDE DHAULPUR AND THIS RENT WAS NE ITHER UNREALIZED RENT NOR ARREAR OF RENT. 6. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THAT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY AS AFORESAID OF EACH YEAR WAS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT HENCE NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THAT YEAR AND HENCE NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. 7. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN INITIATING THE PR OCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. FIRSTLY, WE WILL TAKE UP THE GROUND NO. 2 WHEREI N THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY THE IT O, WARD-4, BHARATPUR STATING THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED W ITHOUT VALID JURISDICTION, AS HE IS NOT THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSES SING OFFICER. SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN TAKEN IN OTHER THREE CASES AS WELL. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE JOINTLY INHERITED THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT DUSHHERA ROAD, SARAI GAJRA, DH OLPUR, RAJASTHAN, LATER KNOWN AS ASHA HOTEL AND THE SAME W AS SOLD ON 18.03.2008. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT JURISDICTION OVE R THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES LIE WITH OTHER ASSESSING OFFICERS AND MER ELY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED AT DHOLPUR, RAJASTHAN, THE AS SESSING OFFICER AT BHARATPUR IS NOT VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES UNLESS THERE IS CHANGE OF ADDRESS IN PAN DATA OR THERE IS AN ORDER ISSUED U/S ITA NO. 7216, 7217, 7174/DEL/2017 & 1033/JP2017 SMT. ASHA NATH/ASHA SAXENA AND ORS. VS ITO 5 127 OF THE ACT TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION OVER T HE ASSESSEES TO ITO, WARD-4, BHARATPUR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF SMT. VEENA SAXENA, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE LIES WITH ITO, WARD-32(2), DELHI; IN RESPECT OF ASHA SAXENA, THE JURISDICTION LIES WITH ITO, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX (1)(1), NEW DELHI; IN RESPECT OF SHRI SARVESH KAMTHHAN, THE JURISDICTION LIES WITH ITO, WARD-52(1 ), DELHI; AND IN RESPECT OF SHRI ADARSH KUMAR KAMTHHAN, THE JURISDI CTION LIES WITH ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 148 BY THE ITO, WARD-4, BHARATPUR TO ALL THESE ASSESSES WERE WITHOUT VALID JURISDICTION. 6. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS IN CASE OF RANJEET SINGH VS ACIT 120 TTJ 517(DELHI), ACIT VS S MT. CHETNA KUKREJA IN ITA NO. 2141/DEL/2009 DATED 09.12.2010, ITO VS. KARAN SAWHNEY IN ITA NO. 2098/DEL/2009 ORDER DATED 07.08. 2009 AND CIT VS. SMT. ANJALI DUA 219 CTR 183 (DEL). 7. THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED T HE MATTER AND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE LD CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD IS SITUATED AT DHOLPUR, RAJASTHAN, AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF THE SAID PR OPERTY IS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES , WHAT HAS TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUING N OTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT HAS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE SAID ASSESSEES. T HE LD. AR HAS ITA NO. 7216, 7217, 7174/DEL/2017 & 1033/JP2017 SMT. ASHA NATH/ASHA SAXENA AND ORS. VS ITO 6 CONTENDED THAT AT THE RELEVANT POINT IN TIME WHEN T HE NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S 148, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES LIE WITH ASSESSING OFFICERS AT DELHI AND ALLAHABAD AND NOT WITH THE AS SESSING OFFICER AT BHARATPUR. THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE SAID FA CT AND HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY ORDER PASSED U/S 127 TRANSFER RING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES TO ITO, WARD-4, BHARATPUR ON OR BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 TO THEM. IN OUR VIEW, WHERE THE ITO WARD 4, BHARATPUR WAS CEASED OF THE INFORMATION OF THE IMPU NGED PROPERTY BEING DISPOSED OFF, THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION WO ULD HAVE BEEN TO PASS ON THE SAID INFORMATION TO THE JURISDICTION AS SESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES AND IT I S FOR THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE RE SPECTIVE ASSESSEE AND BRINGING THE CAPITAL GAINS TO TAX IN THEIR INDIVIDU AL HANDS TO THE EXTENT OF RESPECTIVE SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. ALTERNATIVELY, ALL THE CASES COULD HAVE BEEN CENTRALIZED BY THE REVENUE BY PASSING AN ORDER U/S 127 OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NONE OF THIS HAS HAP PENED. IT IS THEREFORE A CASE WHERE THE ITO WARD 4, BHARATPUR HAS PROCEEDE D AHEAD AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE WHEN THE JURISDICTION OVER THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES DOESNT LIE WITH HIM AND LIES WITH OTHER ASSESSING OFFICERS AT DELHI AND ALLAHABA D, A FACT NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. IN ABSENCE OF VALID JURISDICTION, THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY ITO WARD 4, BHARATPUR IS BAD IN LAW AND THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 ARE VITIATED AND ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 9. THE COORDINATE DELHI BENCH DECISION IN CASE OF RANJEET SINGH VS ACIT (SUPRA) ALSO SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE S WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 7216, 7217, 7174/DEL/2017 & 1033/JP2017 SMT. ASHA NATH/ASHA SAXENA AND ORS. VS ITO 7 7. FROM THESE FACTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX IN DELHI AND AS ON 30TH MARCH, 2005, THE ITO, WARD 2(2), GHAZIABAD, DID NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S. 148 OF THE AC T BY THE ITO, WARD 2(2), GHAZIABAD, IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. FURT HER, UNDER S. 149 OF THE ACT, NO NOTICE UNDER S. 148 SHALL BE ISS UED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IF FOUR YEARS, BUT NOT MOR E THAN SIX YEARS HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNLESS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED A SSESSMENT AMOUNTS TO OR IS LIKELY TO AMOUNT TO RS. 1,00,000 O R MORE FOR THAT YEAR. THEREFORE, NOTICE UNDER S. 148 COULD BE ISSUE D FOR ASST. YR. 1998-99 UPTO 31ST MARCH, 2005. THE PRESENT AO WHEN RECEIVED THE RELEVANT FILE FROM ITO, WARD 2(2), GHAZIABAD CO NTAINING MATERIAL FOR PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER S. 147 IN DECEMBER, 2005, THE TIME OF SIX YEARS HAD ALREADY ELAPSED. TH EREFORE, HE COULD NOT HAVE ISSUED FURTHER NOTICE UNDER S. 148 O F THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS BAD IN LAW AND DOES NOT HAV E LEGS TO STAND. THE CONTENTION OF REVENUE THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS ROU TED THROUGH THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIT IS OF NO HELP WHEN THE AO INCLUDING THE LEARNED CIT AND ADDL. CIT WERE NOT HAVING JURISDICT ION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE WHEN THE PROPOSAL WAS SENT TO THE LEARNED CIT, GHAZIABAD. ANOTHER CONTENTION OF T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO WITHIN THE MEA NING OF S. 120. SEC. 120 OF THE ACT CONFERS JURISDICTION ON IT AUTH ORITIES AS PER THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED THEREIN. SUB-SS. (2) AND ( 3) OF S. 120 DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONFER JURISDICTION ON TERRITORIA L BASIS IN RESPECT OF PERSON ALREADY ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE JURISDI CTION OF OTHER CHIEF CIT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED IN THE CHARGE OF CHIEF CIT, DELHI. NO ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE CBDT EMPOWERING THE AO OR THE LEARNED CIT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS INTIMATED THE AO THAT HE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX WITH DY. CIT CIRCLE 21(2), NEW DELHI. THEREFORE, THIS CO NTENTION OF THE REVENUE DOES NOT HAVE ANY MERITS. ITA NO. 7216, 7217, 7174/DEL/2017 & 1033/JP2017 SMT. ASHA NATH/ASHA SAXENA AND ORS. VS ITO 8 8. THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN TRANSPORT CO. VS. IAC (SUPRA), WH EREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO APPEAL LIES AS TO THE JURISDICTIO N AFTER THE ASSESSMENT. THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE OBJECTION IMMEDIATELY AFTER ISSUE OF THE NOTICE THAT HE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX BY THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE 21(2) , NEW DELHI AND IN FACT THE FILE CONTAINING NOTICE UNDER S. 148 , REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ITO, GHAZ IABAD, ETC. WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. THEREFORE, IT IS INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE SENIO R DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TO PLEAD THAT AFTER ASSESSMENT THE A SSESSEE CANNOT TAKE OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION FROM VERY BEGIN NING OF S. 147 PROCEEDINGS. SHE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RECKITT COLMAN OF INDIA LTD. & ANR. VS. ASSTT. CIT (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE TH E CHIEF CIT ASSIGNED JURISDICTION TO THE ASSTT. CIT, TDS, CIRCL E 21(2) TO DEAL WITH ALL THE MATTERS RELATING TO ALL SECTIONS CONTA INED IN CHAPTER XVII IN RESPECT OF ALL PERSONS, WHO WERE OR COULD C OME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF JT. CIT. THE DECISION OF THIS CASE IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE AS NEITHER THE CHIEF CIT NOR THE CBDT HA VE ASSIGNED JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE TO THE ITO, WARD 2(2 ), GHAZIABAD. ANOTHER CASE RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE IS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF B.R. INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT & ORS. (SUPRA). IN THIS CAS E THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT, DELHI-I, ASSIGNING THE J URISDICTION WAS CHALLENGED BY WAY OF WRIT PETITION. THE RATIO OF TH IS DECISION IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE AS NO JURISDICTION WAS ASSIGNED TO ITO, WARD 2(2), GHAZIABAD. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE DEFECT IN THE NOTICE CAN BE IGNO RED UNDER S. 292B OF THE ACT. SEC. 292B OF THE IT ACT, 1961 SAYS THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OT HER PROCEEDINGS, ETC. SHALL BE INVALID, OR SHALL BE DEE MED TO BE INVALID ITA NO. 7216, 7217, 7174/DEL/2017 & 1033/JP2017 SMT. ASHA NATH/ASHA SAXENA AND ORS. VS ITO 9 MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE OR DEFECT OR OMISSI ON IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OT HER PROCEEDINGS, IF SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EF FECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR IN ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND P URPOSE OF THIS ACT. THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 2(2), GHAZI ABAD, IS NOT IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROV ISIONS OF S. 120 R/W S. 147 OF THE ACT. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED WITHOU T JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF S. 292B WILL NOT BE OF ANY HELP TO THE REVENUE. THE PROVISIONS OF S. 292B COULD HAVE BEEN INVOKED IF THE ITO, WARD 2(2), GHAZIABAD, WAS HAVING JURISDICT ION OVER THE ASSESSEE AND SOME MISTAKE WAS COMMITTED IN THE NOTI CE ISSUED BY HIM UNDER S. 148. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE . 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO, WARD 2(2), GHAZIABAD, WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTIALLY THE ASSESSMENT MAD E IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGL Y. 10. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS SMT. ANJALI DUA (SUPRA) ALSO SUPPORTS THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEES WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 4. IT IS IN THIS BACKGROUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL NOTED TH AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO TRANSFER THE JURISDICTIO N WAS NOTED IN THE LETTER DT. 25TH MARCH, 1998, WHEREBY THE NO OBJ ECTION OF CIT, NEW DELHI, WAS CONVEYED TO THE CIT, LUDHIANA. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED RETURNS FOR THE ASST. YRS. 1997-98 ONWARDS AT NEW DELHI. IT IS IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT INSOFAR AS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONCERNED, AFTER THE S AID TRANSFER, IT IS ONLY REVENUE AUTHORITIES AT NEW DELHI WHO HAD JU RISDICTION ITA NO. 7216, 7217, 7174/DEL/2017 & 1033/JP2017 SMT. ASHA NATH/ASHA SAXENA AND ORS. VS ITO 10 OVER THE ASSESSEES CASES AND WHO WERE COMPETENT TO ISSUE A NOTICE IN TERMS OF S. 148 OF THE SAID ACT. IT MAY A LSO BE POINTED THAT PURSUANT TO THE ISSUANCE OF IMPUGNED NOTICE UN DER S. 148 OF THE SAID ACT ON 28TH MARCH, 2003, WHEN THE NOTICE U NDER S. 142(1) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN DECEMBER, 2003 , THE ASSESSEE BY HER REPLY DT. 21ST JAN., 2004, INDICATE D THAT HER AO WAS NOT LOCATED IN LUDHIANA, BUT WAS THE ITO AT NEW DELHI. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT S AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUES TION OF LAW ARISING IN THE PRESENT CASE. NO INTERFERENCE WITH T HE IMPUGNED ORDER IS CALLED FOR. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS REFERRED SUPRA, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 BY THE ITO WARD 4, BHARATPUR WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE CONSEQUE NT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 R/W 144 IS BAD IN LAW AND DESE RVES TO BE QUASHED IN ALL THESE CASES. 12. HAVING DECIDED THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BECOME INFRUCTIOUS AND THE SAME ARE HEREBY DIS MISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSE SSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/08/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 03/08/2018. ITA NO. 7216, 7217, 7174/DEL/2017 & 1033/JP2017 SMT. ASHA NATH/ASHA SAXENA AND ORS. VS ITO 11 *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- A- SMT. ASHA NATH/ ASHA SAXENA, NEW DELHI. B- SMT. VEENA SAXENA, NEW DELHI. C- SH. SARVESH KUMAR KAMTHHAN, NEW DELHI. D- SH. ADARSH KUMAR KAMTHAN, LUCKNOW. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD- 4, BHARATPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 7216, 7217, 7174/DEL/2017 & 1033/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR