JCIT (OSD), International Taxation, Chandigarh V. Sh. Balwant Singh Jutla, Jalandhar

ITA 720/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4502 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S SANGHA
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDRA KANTA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report; Competent authority
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 147; 148; 144; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH , !' # $ % &' , '( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE JCIT (OSD), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, S/O SH. RATTAN SINGH, 1. # 4128, PREET NAGAR, SHANKAR ROAD, NAKODAR, JALADHAR 2. #137, SHARNKAR ROAD, NAKODAR 3. ST.30, ALSELAM ROAD, HAYS, MIDDLESEX, UB315D, UK 4. 68, PARK SIDE AVE, MILL BROOK, SOUTHAMPTON, UK ./PAN NO: CTFPS9013M / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 42/CH/2018 ( IN ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, S/O SH. RATTAN SINGH, 1.# 4128, PREET NAGAR, SHANKAR ROAD, NAKODAR, JALADHAR 2.#137, SHARNKAR ROAD, NAKODAR 3.ST.30, ALSELAM ROAD, HAYS, MIDDLESEX, UB315D, UK 4. 68, PARK SIDE AVE, MILL BROOK, SOUTHAMPTON, UK THE JCIT (OSD), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH ./PAN NO: CTFPS9013M / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! ' /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI CHANDRAKANTA, SR.DR # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SH. B.S. SANGHA, ADVOCATE $ % ! & /DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2019 '()* ! & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16. 05.2019 ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018- & C.O. 42-C-18 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, JALANDHAR 2 ')/ ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CORRESPON DING CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 28.2.2018 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-43, NEW DELHI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR OBSERVED THAT AS PER AIR INFORMATION, TH E ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED (I) 29.43 LAKH IN CASH SOLELY IN CANARA BANK, NAKODA R AND (II) 37 LAKHS IN CASH JOINTLY WITH HIS SON, SHRI INDERJ IT SINGH JUTLA IN BANK OF BARODA, NAKODAR. NOTICES WERE SENT TO HIS A VAILABLE ADDRESS I.E. #4128, PREET NAGAR, NAKODAR BY ITO, NAKODAR ASKING HIM TO FURNISH THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOTS. ALL THE NOTICES WERE RECEIVE D BACK AND THEN WERE SERVED UPON ASSESSEE THROUGH AFFIXTURE. INFORMATI ON U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE BANK OF BARODA, NAKODAR AND CANARA BANK, NAKODAR. ON PERUSAL OF THE ACCOUNT OPENING FORM OF CANARA BANK, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NRI HAVING BRITISH PASS PORT AND LIVING IN U.K. AND HIS TWO ADDRESSES (ONE OF ABROAD AND ONE O F INDIA ) WERE AS BELOW: ST 30, ALSILAM ROAD, HAYS, MIDDLESEX, UB31SD # 137, SHANKAR ROAD, NAKODAR ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018- & C.O. 42-C-18 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, JALANDHAR 3 THEREAFTER, THE ITO, NAKODAR TRANSFERRED THE CASE T O DCIT, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CHANDIGARH [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS DCIT(IE)] VIDE LETTER DATED 18.10.2016 FOR COMPLE TION OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DCIT(IE) ACCORDING LY ISSUED NOTICE DATED 22.11.2016 U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSES SEE AT HIS NAKODAR ADDRESS. HOWEVER, SINCE NO ONE APPEARED, THE DCIT (IE) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND MADE THE ADDITIO N OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE, INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE SAME AS UNAC COUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE DCIT ( IE) / ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS BAD IN LAW AS NO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AT HIS CORRECT ADDRESS. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A NON-RESIDENT INDIAN (NRI) RESIDING IN U.K., HOWEVER, ALL THE NOT ICES WERE ISSUED AT THE NAKODAR ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAD LEFT RESIDING THERE LONG BACK. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS WELL A S THE PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSES SEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, RATHER, THE SAME WAS ANCESTRAL HUF PROPER TY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ADDITIONS, IF ANY, THAT COULD HAVE BEE N MADE WERE TO BE ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018- & C.O. 42-C-18 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, JALANDHAR 4 MADE IN THE HANDS OF SH BALWANT SINGH HUF AND NOT I N THE INDIVIDUAL NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WERE NOT TAXABLE AS THE AGRIC ULTURAL LAND WAS SITUATED BEYOND THE MUNICIPAL / SPECIFIED LIMIT AN D DID NOT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS AND, HENCE, NO CAP ITAL GAIN TAX WAS LEVIABLE. THAT IN RESPECT OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE , THE ASSESSEE HAD RELINQUISHED HIS SHARE IN FAVOUR OF HIS NEPHEW AND THAT NO REGISTERED SALE DEED WAS MADE AS THE TRANSFER WAS WITHIN THE B LOOD RELATIONS AND THE SAME WAS DONE THROUGH FAMILY PARTITION DEED. FU RTHER, THAT ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CAPITAL GAIN T AX WAS NOT LEVIABLE AFTER DEDUCTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND INDEXAT ION THEREOF. 4. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO AFTER APPRECIATION THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED / FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF SALE DEED, CASH FLOW STAT EMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO AFTER CALLING THE REMAND REPORT O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HELD THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE IN THE CAS E INVOLVED WAS REGARDING THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT OF 37 LACS AND 29 LACS RESPECTIVELY FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY EXPLAINED BY PRODUCING THE RESPECTIVE SALE DEEDS OF DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSES SEE, ALSO CASH FLOW STATEMENT GIVEN IN TABULATED FORM AND THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. FURTHER, THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS AN NRI, PERMANENTLY SET TLED AT U.K. THERE ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018- & C.O. 42-C-18 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, JALANDHAR 5 WAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE I N INDIA. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRIMA-FACIE EXPLAINED THE DEPOSITS OF 37 LACS. HE ALSO HELD THAT EVEN SINCE THE LAND SOLD WAS AN AGRICULTU RAL LAND SITUATED OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT, THEREFORE, THE SALE PR OCEEDS WERE NOT LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX. REGARDING OTHER DEPOSITS OF 29 LACS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY IN FACT WAS TRANSFERRED WITH IN THE FAMILY BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE VALUATION OF THE PR OPERTY AND THE SHARE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED OUT OF THE SALE OF PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAINS TAX WAS NOT LEVIABLE ON THE SAID PROCEEDS ALSO. HE , THEREFORE, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE LEGAL GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.37,00,000/- (BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK OF BARODA) RELYING ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH DEPOSIT REPRESENTS THE CASH RECEIVED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WITHOUT FURTHER VERIFICATION AND ALSO BY IGNORING THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE A.O. IN REMAND REPORT. 2. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, , LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,43,000/- (BEING ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018- & C.O. 42-C-18 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, JALANDHAR 6 UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN CANARA BANK) RELYING ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY THAT CASH DEPOSIT REPRESENTS THE CASH RECEIVED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION OF VALUATION REPORT, IN THE ABSENCE OF REGISTERED SALE DEED AND ALSO IGNORING THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS FACTS NARRATED BY THE A.O. IN REMAND REPORT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE CROSS OBJEC TIONS TAKING THE LEGAL OBJECTIONS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAV E ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. 7. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE VIS- A- VIS THE DATE OF SALE DEEDS OF THE LAND DID NOT M ATCH WITH THE DATE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE FORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WRONGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY EXPLAINED T HE CASH DEPOSITS. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SA LE OF SHARE IN THE HOUSE, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CALL FOR INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION BUT SIMPLY RELIED UPON O F THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTH ER THAT HE HAD WRONGLY IGNORED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018- & C.O. 42-C-18 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, JALANDHAR 7 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SALE DEEDS AS WELL AS SALE AGREEME NT OF THE HOUSE AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EARLIER HAD RECEIVE D 10% EARNEST MONEY WHEN THE DEAL WAS FINALIZED VERBALLY AND THEREAFTER 20% OF THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED WHEN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS EXECUTE D AND FINALIZED AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED. THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF 41.75 LACS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND, OUT OF WHICH 37 LACS WAS DEPOSITED. THAT EVEN THERE WAS NO REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND DID NOT FALL IN THE DEFINITIO N OF CAPITAL ASSET. 9. CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW , THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY EXPLAIN ED THE SOURCE OF 37 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF DEPOSIT OF 29 LACS OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE HOUSE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY PLACED ON FILE THE AGREEMENT TO S ELL AS WELL AS THE FAMILY PARTITION DEED AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE PROPERTY. THE LD. CIT(A) CO NSIDERING THE SAID VALUATION REPORT, THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE FROM THE TRANSFER OF HIS SHARE IN THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HIS NEPHEW, IN OUR VIEW, HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD DULY ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018- & C.O. 42-C-18 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, JALANDHAR 8 EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE SAID DEPOSIT AND ALSO T HAT NO CAPITAL GAINS HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE TRANSFER OF THE SAID SHARE IN THE ANCESTRAL HOUSE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY ME RIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 10. NOW COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTIONS I.E. C.O.NO.42/CHD/2018 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. ADMITTEDLY, THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND FURTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED BY THE ITO, NAKODAR. NONE OF THE NOTICE WERE ACTUALLY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. EVERY NOTI CE SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST WAS RECEIVED BACK WITH THE COMMENTS ADDRESSEE LEFT INDIA WITHOUT ADDRESS . EVEN THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS IN HIS REPORT DATED 18.08.2016 IN RESPECT OF THE AFFIXATION ORDER HAS REITERATED THAT HE HAD VISITED THE NAKODAR ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND GO T TO KNOW THAT SHRI BALWANT SINGH JUTLA WAS LIVING ABROAD I.E. IN U.K., HOWEVER, HE HAD AFFIXED THE NOTICE ON THE MAIN GATE OF THE ASSESSEE HOUSE. ADMITTEDLY, NONE OF THE NOTICE WAS SENT AT THE U.K. ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT REGARDING WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT DEPOSITS WERE NRI ACCOUNTS. THAT THE U.K. ADDRESS O F THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY AVAILABLE WITH THE BANK AUTHORITIES. THE LD. C OUNSEL IN THIS RESPECT HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 13.2. 2012 OF THE CANARA BANK WRITTEN TO ITO, NAKODAR, WHEREBY, THE DETAILS OF TH E DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018- & C.O. 42-C-18 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, JALANDHAR 9 ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE PROVIDED TO ITO, NAKOD AR. THE OPENING LINE OF THE LETTER ARE WE ARE SUBMITTING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION OF NRI MR. BALWANT SINGH JUTTLA.. , HENCE, IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE SAID INFORMATION WHICH WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN THE YEAR 2012 ITSELF THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN NRI. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AFTER ISSUING SEVERAL LETTERS ASKING THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS AND ON EACH AND EVERY LETTER THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAD REPORTED THAT THE ADDRESSEE HAD LEFT INDIA. DES PITE THAT, THE ITO NAKODAR DID NOT MAKE EFFORT TO GET THE ACTUAL ADDRE SS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO WAS AN NRI. AFTER ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ALLEGEDLY SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE, SUDDENLY THE ITO NAKODAR CAME TO KNOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING IN U.K. AND HIMSELF TRAN SFERRED THE CASE TO THE DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION). WHAT NEW INFORMATION HAD COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ITO, NAKODAR ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, FROM TH E REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER CAME TO NOTICE ABOUT THE U.K. ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OPENING FORM. THE ITO, NAKOKAR IN OUR VIEW, COULD H AVE EASILY VERIFIED ABOUT THE U.K. ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BA NK ACCOUNT OPENING FORM. EVEN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN CANA RA BANK IS AN ACCOUNT MEANT FOR NON-RESIDENT INDIAN. FACTS ITSELF SPEAKS THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WERE DEPOSITED IN THE NRI ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS AN NRI, WHICH FACT WAS DULY AVAILABLE ON ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018- & C.O. 42-C-18 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, JALANDHAR 10 RECORD, THE ITO NAKODAR HAD NO JURISDICTION TO INI TIATE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY WAY OF ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE ACT. EVEN THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE I TO, NAKODAR HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REOPEN OR PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT IS WHY HE HAD TRANSFERRED THE PENDING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO THE DCIT (IE), CHANDIGARH. ADMITTEDLY, THE DCIT (IE) HAVING SPECIF IC INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING AT U.K. AND ALSO HAVING THE U.K. ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF T HE ACT DATED 22.11.2016 AT THE NAKODAR ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND NOT AT THE U.K. ADDRESS. ADMITTEDLY, NO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT B Y THE DCIT (IE), CHANDIGARH TO THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED. SINCE THE I TO, NAKODAR HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT, HENCE, ANY N OTICE ISSUED BY HIM HAS NO LEGAL VALIDITY. SO FAR AS THE DCIT (IE), CHA NDIGARH IS CONCERNED, HE ADMITTEDLY DID NOT ISSUE ANY NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE VERY REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WI THOUT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE COMPETENT JURISDICTION, IS BAD IN LAW AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL A SSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF T HE LAW AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 12. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ITO, NAKODAR HAD TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO DCIT (IE), CHANDIGARH AND, HENCE, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF ISSUING OF FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE ACT AS PER THE ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018- & C.O. 42-C-18 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, JALANDHAR 11 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127 (4) OF THE ACT IS CONCERN ED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR. FIRSTL Y, THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ITO, NAKODAR WERE WITH OUT JURISDICTION AND THE SAME WERE VOID ABINITIO, HENCE, ANY TRANSFER OF SUCH VOID PROCEEDINGS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF COMPETENT J URISDICTION DID NOT VALIDATE HIS ACTION AND THE PROCEEDINGS. EVEN OTHER WISE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, ITO NAKODAR H IMSELF HAD NO JURISDICTION TO SUO MOTU TRANSFER THE CASE TO THE D CIT (IE). RATHER, THE TRANSFER OF THE CASE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 127 (1) OF THE ACT, CAN BE ORDERED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY PRESCRIBE D IN THE SAID PROVISIONS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THERE IS FORCE IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND THE SAME IS ACCOR DINGLY ALLOWED. 13. HOWEVER, SO FAR AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND AND HOUSE BELONG TO SHRI BALWANT SINGH HUF IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE FILE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI BALWANT SINGH HAD TRANSFERRED HIS SHARE OF THE LAND AND HIS HOUSE TO HIS HUF. EVEN THE SALE DEEDS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT IN THE NAME OF KARTA OF HUF. THIS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO FORCE. 14. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT FA RMED IS ALLOWED AND CONSEQUENTIAL RE-ASSESSMENT, FRAMED IN THIS CASE IS QUASHED. ITA NO. 720/CHD/2018- & C.O. 42-C-18 SH. BALWANT SINGH JUTLA, JALANDHAR 12 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED, WHEREAS, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE TERMS AS ME NTIONED ABOVE, IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.05.2019. SD/- SD/- ( # $ % &' / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) '( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16.05.2019 .. (, ! -. /. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ 0 / CIT 4. $ 0 ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. .12 3 , & 3 , 45627 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 26 8% / GUARD FILE (, $ / BY ORDER, 9 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR