Shri Kamal Piyush, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 406/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 40620114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH ASHWANI TANEJA
• Keywords: Validity of assessment; Accommodation entries; Assessment record
• Section: 142(1); 147; 148; 12; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NO.406/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI KAMAL PIYUSH, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, C/O RRA TAXINDIA, VS. WARD-37(1), NEW DELHI. D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAAPP1726G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : S/SH. ASHWANI TANEJA & TARUN KUMA R, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, SR. DR. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1 .10.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN THE MATTER OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC. 144/147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-05. 2. UNDER GROUNDS NO.1 TO 4, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLE NGED THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE PRESENT ASSESSING OF FICER U/S 147 OF THE ACT 2 AND ASSUMING JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT U/ S 147 OF THE ACT BY THE AO ON THE FOLLOWING POINTS:- (I) THAT NO REASONS WERE RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ISSU ING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. (II) THE AO HAS ASSUMED JURISDICTION WITHOUT SERVING THE MANDATORY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, UPON THE ASSESSEE. (III) THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER SEC. 147 TO 153 OF THE ACT IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT, H AVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. 3. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE FIR ST POINT RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PRESENT A SSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SE RVING ANY NOTICE REQUIRED U/S 148 OF THE ACT, BY HIM. 4. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED VOLUNTARILY HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.06.2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,93,935/-, WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AT THE SAME AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 13. 03.2007 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO THAT INCOME OF RS.4,01,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT O F THE INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF T HE AFORESAID AMOUNT. THESE REASONS WERE RECORDED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER, WARD-19(2), NEW DELHI, WHO HAD ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 13.03.2007. THIS 3 NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DATED 13.03.2007 WAS ISSU ED AND SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:- MR. KAMAL PIYUSH, 10, COMMUNITY CENTRE NO.2 ASHOK VIHAR, PH-II, DELHI. THIS NOTICE WAS SENT BY SPEED POST ON 15.03.2007 AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE POSTAL RECEIPT AFFIXED ON THE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 5. AFTER THE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 13.03.2007 HAVING BEEN ISSUED ON 15.03.2007 BY SPEED POST, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, W ARD-19(2), NEW DELHI, ISSUED A LETTER DATED 10.10.2007 SENT BY POST ON 22 .10.2007 AT THE AFORESAID ADDRESS, STATING THEREIN THAT NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 13.03.2007 HAS BEEN SERVED THROUGH SPEED POST DATED 15.03.2007 AND IN THAT REG ARD, HE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS AND INFORMATION FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 29.10.2007 AT 11.30AM. ALONG WITH THIS LETTER D ATED 10.10.2007, THE AO ALSO SENT A STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. ON 29.10.2007, NONE FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED BEFORE THE AO. THE AO THERE AFTER ISSUED A LETTER DATED 7.11.2007 ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE COMPLIA NCE TO THE NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED UNDER SEC. 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIO NNAIRE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIXED THE DATE ON 14.11.2007 FOR COMPLIANCE , IN FAILURE OF WHICH, HE PROPOSED TO COMPLETE THE PROCEEDINGS EX PARTE ON ME RITS TO THE BEST OF JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AVAILAB LE ON RECORD. THIS 4 LETTER DATED 17.11.2007 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT 10, BIRBAL ROAD, 1 ST FLOOR, JUNGPURA EXTENSION, NEW DELHI. ON THE DATE FIXED I .E. 14.11.2007, ONE SHRI NAVIN MALIK, CA ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND HE WAS ASKED TO FILE CERTAIN DETAILS VIDE ORDER-SHEET ENTRY DATED 14.11.2007 FIXING THE MATTER ON 19.11.2007. NONE FOR THE ASSE SSEE ATTENDED ON 19.11.2007 AND, THEREAFTER, THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CA USE NOTICE DATED 22.11.2007 UNDER SEC. 274 READ WITH SEC. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FIXING THE MATTER ON 26.11.2007. THEREAFTER, ON 27.11.2007, O NE SHRI NAVIN MALIK, CA APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND FILED A LETTER DATED 27. 11.2007 ALONG WITH COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE INTIMATED THE AO THAT HE WAS BEING ASSESSE D TO TAX BY THE ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI, WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME V IDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.236 WAS FILED ON 15.06.2004. THE ASSESSEE THERE FORE, REQUESTED THE AO TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION IN THE MATTER. IN THE LIGH T OF THE ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 27.11.2007, ITO, WARD 19(2), NEW DELHI WROTE A LETTER DATED 27.11.2007 TO THE ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI STATIN G THEREIN THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING ASSESSED TO TAX WITH THE ITO, WA RD 37(1), NEW DELHI, THE ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI WAS REQUIRED TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION IN ALL THESE CASES AT HIS END. ALONG WITH THIS LETTER THR EE COVERS CONTAINING THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WERE SENT BY THE ITO, WARD 19(2), NEW DELHI TO THE ITO, 5 WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI. THEREAFTER, THE ITO, WARD 37 (1), 4 TH FLOOR, N- BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 27.11.2007 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 7.12.2007. ONE MORE NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 11.12.2007 FIXING THE MATTER ON 18.12.2007 WAS ALSO ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 37(1), 4 TH FLOOR, N-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. FURTHER, THE SAME AO VIDE LETTER DATED 11.12.2007 HAD GIVEN AN ASSESSEE A FINAL OPPORTUNITY FIXING THE MATTER ON 18.12.2007, IN FAI LURE OF WHICH, HE PROPOSED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 144 OF THE AC T, ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND WITHOUT ANY FURTH ER REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE PRESENT AO, NAMELY THE I TO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 144 OF T HE ACT ON 31.12.2007, BY DETERMINING THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME AT RS.11,65 ,400/-. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 7. VIDE GROUND NOS.3, 4 & 5 TAKEN BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY CONTE NDING THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW AND WITHOUT SERVING MANDATO RY NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 AND 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND WITHOUT COMPLY ING THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS OF SEC. 147 TO 153 OF THE ACT. 6 8. THESE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN R EJECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- 11. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT NOTICE U/S 148 H AS NOT BEEN SERVED. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. AHS GIVEN DETAILS OF THE NOTICES ISSUED. A CO PY OF THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUE O F NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN ENCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF ON P AGE 1 AND 1A OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PAGE 3A OF THE PAPER BOOK , THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.11.07 FROM THE I.T.O. WARD 19(2) ADDRESSED TO THE I.T.O. WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI BY WHICH THE ASSESSMENT RECORD IN THIS CASE, HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE I.T.O. WARD 37(1). IN THIS LETT ER, THE I.T.O. WARD 19(2) HAS REFERRED TO THE ASSESSEES LETTER DA TED 27.11.07 AND A COPY OF THIS LETTER HAS BEEN ENCLOSED, WITH T HE LETTER DATED 27.11.07 FROM THE I.T.O. WARD 19(2). THIS LETTER I S BY SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR MALIK, P.O.A. AND STATES AS FOLLOWS: REG. NOTICE U/S 142(1) IN THE MATTER OF MR. KAMAL PIYUSH, AKSHAY BANSAL AND AYUSHI BANSAL THE CAPTIONED CASE IS UNDER ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ABOVE SAID ASSESSEES TO FURNISH THEIR RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT IN THE MATTER THAT AKSHAY BANSAL AND AYUSHI BANSAL ARE MINOR, CHILDREN OF MR. KAMAL PIYUSH AND THEIR INCOME IS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THEIR FATHER MR. KAMAL PIYUSH. FURTHER, KINDLY FIND ENCLOSED COPY OF RETURN ALONG WITH OTHER ENCLOSURES. KINDLY TREAT THIS AS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF YOUR NOTICE U/S 148 AND 142(1). 12. IN THE ABOVE LETTER, THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED TO HAVING RECEIVED THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND HAS FILED A COPY OF HIS RETURN WITH A REQUEST, THAT THIS BE TREATED AS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF 7 THE NOTICES U/S 148 AND 142(1). THIS IS FURTHER CO RROBORATED BY THE A.O.S OBSERVATIONS IN THE ORDER THAT THE A.O. HAS STATED THAT ON 27.11.2007 SH. NAVIN MALIK ATTENDED & FURN ISHED A COPY OF RETURN FILED EARLIER ALONGWITH ITS ANNEXURE S. THE LETTER REFERRED TO ABOVE IS DATED 27.11.07 AND WAS OBVIOUS LY FILED ON 27.11.07 BEFORE THE A.O. 13. IN HIS PAPER BOOK, THE APPELLANT HAS ENCLOSED A COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 13.03.07 WHERE THE ADDRESS IS THAT OF ASHOK VIHAR, DELHI. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT HE IS RESIDING IN JANGPURA EXTN., DELHI, AND THE NOTICES WERE NOT RECEIVED BY HIM. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ADDRESS O F ASHOK VIHAR, DELHI GIVEN IN THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS THE NOTICE AV AILABLE ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT IN HIS RETUR N HE HAS GIVEN THE ADDRESS OF JANGPURA EXTN., DELHI AND PRIO R TO THAT THE ADDRESS IS OF PRITAMPURA, DELHI. THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IN THE LETTER DATED 27.11.07 DIS CUSSED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS SPECIFICALLY ADMITTED TO H AVING RECEIVED THE NOTICE U/S 148. 14. IN HIS LETTER DATED 27.11.07, A COPY OF WHICH H AS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS PAPERBOOK, THE APPELL ANT HAS ADMITTED TO HAVING RECEIVED THE NOTICE U/S 148. IN THE ASSTT. ORDER, THE A.O. HAS STATED THAT SHRI NAVIN MALIK A. R. HAS ATTENDED ON CERTAIN DATES AND FURNISHED A COPY OF R ETURN FILED EARLIER. THE APPELLANT AHS NOT CLAIMED TO HAVE CHA LLENGED THE JURISDICTION OR NON-RECEIPT OF NOTICES, DURING ASST T. PROCEEDINGS. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED IN REGARD TO ANY SUCH CL AIM MADE DURING ASSTT. PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT AHS FAILE D TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS CLAIM WAS NOT MADE EARLIER. IT IS APPAREN T THAT THIS CLAIM IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT. CONSIDERING THE FAC TS, THE APPELLANTS CLAIM REGARDING NOT HAVING RECEIVED THE NOTICES IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE GROUND IS THEREFORE, DISM ISSED. 9. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS PLACED IN THE 8 PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WA S ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 19(2), NEW DELHI AT THE ADDRESS, 10, COMMUNITY CEN TRE NO.2, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-II, DELHI. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT BE FORE THE ITO, WARD 19(2), NEW DELHI, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 27 .11.2007 STATING THAT HE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.236 DATED 15.06.2004 WITH THE IT O, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI. THIS FACT STATED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPT ED BY THE ITO, WARD 19(2), NEW DELHI, WHO WAS THEN PLEASED TO SEND THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS TO THE ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI. THE NOTICE OF HEAR ING DATED 7.11.2007 AND 22.11.2007 WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEES ADDRESS AT 1 0, BIRBAL ROAD, FIRST FLOOR, JANGPURA EXTN., NEW DELHI BY THE ITO, WARD 1 9(2), NEW DELHI, IN COMPLIANCE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DA TED 27.11.2007 INTIMATING THE FACT OF HIS BEING ASSESSED WITH THE ITO, WARD 3 7(1), NEW DELHI. IN THE LIGHT OF THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE T O THE ITO, WARD 19(2), NEW DELHI, THE ITO, WARD 19(2), NEW DELHI TRANSFERR ED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS TO THE ITO, WARD-37(1), NEW DELHI VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 27.11.2007. THEREAFTER, THE ITO, WARD-37(1), NEW DELHI ISSUED N OTICE U/S 143(2) TO THE ASSESSEE AT ASSESSEES ADDRESS AT 10, BIRBAL ROAD, FIRST FLOOR, JANGPURA EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-14. IT IS, THUS, CLEAR THAT N O NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED 9 FRESHLY BY THE ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI BEFORE IS SUING THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 27.11.2007 AND 11.12.2007. IN OTHER WORD S, THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 144/147 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMING JURISDICT ION BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT BY THE ITO, WARD 19(2), N EW DELHI. NOW, THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 19(2), NEW DELHI U/S 148 ON 13.03.2007 IS A VALID NOTICE SO TH AT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE TRANSFEREE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSE SSEE IS EMPOWERED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ITO, WARD 19(2), NEW DELHI HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE JU RISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS LYING WITH THE ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI AND HE ACCORDINGLY TRANSFERRED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD FROM HIS WARD TO THE ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI, IT IS ADMITTED BY THE ITO, W ARD 19(2), NEW DELHI THAT HE HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CAS E. THE ITO, WARD 19(2), NEW DELHI, ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE ASSESSEE AT 10, COMMUNITY CENTRE NO.2, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-II, DELHI, BUT LATER ON, H E ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) AND NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH SEC. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT ON 7.11.2007 AND 22.11.2007 AT THE ASSESSEES CORRECT ADDRESS AT 10, BIRBAL ROAD, JANGPURA EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-14. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS ADMI TTED POSITION OR FACTS, IT CAN THEREFORE, BE SAFELY HELD THAT THE ITO, WARD 19 (2), NEW DELHI HAD NO 10 JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT POIN T OF TIME AND THUS, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT MERE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER DATED 27.11.2007 HAS STATED THAT RETURN OF INCOME ALREADY FILED MAY KINDLY BE TREATED AS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED U NDER SEC. 148 AND 142(1) OF THE ACT, SHALL NOT CHANGE THE POSITION OF LAW IN ASMUCH AS JURISDICTION OF THE AO TO ASSESS ANY PERSON CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY IMPLICATION OR CONSENT. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE I TO, WARD 19(2), NEW DELHI UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 13.03.2007 IS WITHOUT JU RISDICTION AND CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ISS UING ANY FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BY THE AO, ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELH I, WHO HAD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT POIN T OF TIME. THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SEC. 144/147 OF THE ACT BY THE ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI WITHOUT ISSUING ANY FRESH NOT ICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT MADE BY HIM IN ABSENCE O F ANY VALID NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT, IS HELD TO BE INV ALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 11. IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW WE HAVE TAKEN ABOVE, REL IANCE MAY BE PLACED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, WHICH WERE RELIED UPO N BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US:- 11 (1) RANJEET SINGH VS. ACIT (2009) 120 TTJ (DEL) 517 : ( 2008) 10 DTR 181. (2) ACIT VS. SMT. CHETNA KUKREJA IN ITA NO.2141/DEL/200 9, ORDER DATED 9 TH DECEMBER, 2010. (3) ITO VS. SHRI KARAN SAWHNEY IN ITA NO.2098/DEL/2009, ORDER DATED 7 TH AUGUST, 2009. (4) ANIL KHOSLA IN ITA 838/2008 DATED 01.09.2008 (DELHI HIGH COURT) (5) CIT VS. SMT. ANJALI DUA (2008) 219 CTR 183 (DEL). (6) M.I. BUILDERS (P) LTD. VS. ITO (2008) 117 TTJ 42 (L UCK). (7) CIT VS. INDIAN SUGAR & GENERAL INDUSTRY EXPORT IMPO RT CORPN. LTD. (2008) 170 TAXMAN 229 (DEL). (8) CIT VS. SMT. PARAMJIT KAUR (2009) 311 ITR 38(P&H). (9) SIGNATURE HOTELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO AND ANR. WP (CIVI L) NO.8067/2010 (DEL). 12. IN THE CASE OF RANJEET SINGH (SUPRA), THE ASSES SEE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX IN DELHI. ITO, WARD 2(2), GHAZIABAD ISSUED A NOTIC E U/S 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. ITO, WARD 2(2), GHAZIABAD DID NOT HA VE ANY JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER S EC. 148 OF THE ACT. IT WAS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 2(2), GHAZIABAD WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF SAID NOTICE WAS HELD TO BE B AD IN LAW. 13. IN THE CASE OF SMT. CHETNA KUKREJA (SURPA), THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY ASSESSED WITH ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), NEW DELHI. THE I TO, WARD-I, FARIDABAD ON RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION, REOPENED THE ASS ESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE WER E TRANSFERRED TO THE ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), NEW DELHI, WHO VESTED WITH THE JURISD ICTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVENTUALLY, THE PROCEEDINGS CULMINATED INTO THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 12 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT ON 27.12.2008. THE ACIT, CIR CLE 23(1), NEW DELHI DID NOT ISSUE FRESH NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 TO PROCEE D TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO, FARIDABAD. IT WAS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), NEW DELHI WAS BAD IN LAW. IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RANJEET SINGH (SUPRA). 14. IN THE CASE OF KARAN SAWHNEY (SUPRA), A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 20(3). THE REASSES SMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED BY THE ITO, WARD 15(2). THE ITO, WARD 20(3) TRANSF ERRED THE CASE TO THE ITO, WARD 15(2) ADMITTING THAT HE WAS NOT THE A.O. THE ITO, WARD 15(2) DID NOT RECORD THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE COMPLE TED ASSESSMENT NOR HE ISSUED ANY FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IT WAS, THUS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ITO, WARD 15(2) ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED BY ITO, WARD 20(3) WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 15. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. ANJALI DUA (SUPRA), THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE STOOD TRANSFERRED FROM LUDHIANA TO NEW DELHI, AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 1997-98 ONWARDS AT NEW DELHI. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT THE AO AT LUDHIANA HAD NO JUR ISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE 13 ON 28 TH MARCH, 2003 TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 148 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. 16. OTHER CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALS O ON SIMILAR LINE. 17. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE ABOVE, WE THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 144/147 MADE BY THE ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WAS BAD IN LAW INASMUC H AS NO VALID NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS EVER ISSUED BY THE SAID ITO, WAR D 37(1), NEW DELHI BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.144/147 OF THE ACT. 18. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE ITO, W ARD 37(1), NEW DELHI UNDER SEC. 144/147 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN HELD T O BE INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION, THE VARIOUS OTHER GROUNDS REGARDING T HE VARIOUS ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), HAVE BECOME REDUND ANT AND NEED NO ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 20. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 14 TH OCTOBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (A.N. PAHUJA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14 TH OCTOBER, 2011. 14 ITA NO.406/DEL/2011. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.