GK Business Centre (P) Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 10(4), New Delhi

ITA 828/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5923 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Invalid notice; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Documents seized; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.828 /DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 M/S. G.K. BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LTD., E-48, GREATER KAILASH PART-I, NEW DELHI. V. ITO, WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: AAACG2359M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJ KUMAR, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI GURMEL SINGH, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 15 01 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02 02 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.04.2019 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S. 143(3)/147 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE PROCE EDINGS U/S.147 / 148 INITIATED AND COMPLETED ON THE BASIS OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE A.O. WARD-LO(L) WHO WAS NOT HAVING THE JURISDICTION AND NO FRESH REASONS BEING RECORDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL A.O. OF WARD-10(4). THE WHOLE PROCEE DINGS ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. I.T.A. NO. 828/DEL/2020 2 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PROCEEDI NGS U/S. 147/148 INITIATED SINCE WITHOUT JURISDICTION, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, ON WRONG FACTS, INITIATED MECH ANICALLY AND ON BORROWED SATISFACTION, HENCE ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTA INABLE IN LAW. 3. THAT THE LD. A.O., SINCE FAILED IN ADJUDICATING ALL OBJECTIONS AGAINST REOPENING PROCEEDINGS, PROPERLY, AS PER LAW AND IN TOTALITY AND AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G.K.N. DRIVE SHAFTS, HENCE CON SEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AND IMPUGNED ASSTT. IS ILLEGAL AND WITH OUT JURISDICTION. 4. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPR OVAL U/S. 151 IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE, GIVEN ON REASONS REC ORDED BY THE A.O. HAVING NO JURISDICTION, MECHANICAL AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND WHICH MAKES THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ILLEGAL AND UNWARRANTED. 5. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ADDITION OF RS.62,00,000/- U/S.68 FOR ALLEGED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY / CAPITAL REED, FROM FOLLOWING 04 COMPANIES IS UNSUST AINABLE IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS:- ETHORIA CAPITAL PVT. LTD. RS. 10,50,000/- PRASANDHI LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD. RS. 15,00,000 /- MAYANK MEDILAB PVT. LTD. RS. 7,50,000/- INSTANT TRAVELS & TOURS PVT. LTD. RS. 19.00.000/- TOTAL RS.62.00.000/- 5.1 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, RS.7,50,000/- OUT OF RS.62,00,000/- SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM M/S MAYANK I.T.A. NO. 828/DEL/2020 3 MEDILAB (P) LTD. WERE RETURNED BACK IMMEDIATELY, IN THE SAME YEAR, HENCE, NO BENEFIT DERIVED, THEREFORE UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE THIS AMT. CAN BE CONSIDERED U/S.68. 5.2 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, RS. 10,50,000/- OUT OF RS.62,00,000/- ALLEGED TO BE RECEIVED FROM EUROPHIA CAPITAL (P) LTD. WERE NEVER RECEIVED FROM ANY SUCH COMPANY, HEN CE UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE THIS AMT. CAN BE CONSIDERED U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 5.3 THAT THE FINDINGS OF A.O. ARE UNSUSTAINABLE FOR ADDITION OF RS.62,00,000/- IN THE ABSENCE OF PROVIDING THE C OPIES OF ALL MATERIALS USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND BF NOT PROV IDING CROSS- EXAMINATION OF PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN R ELIED UPON, THUS NO PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HAS BEEN ALLOWED AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS GROSSLY VIOLATED WHICH MAKES THE IMPUGNED ASSTT. UNSUSTAINA BLE IN LAW. 6. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ADDITION OF RS. 1,24,000/- U/S.69C AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BEING ALLEGED COMMISSION EXPENSES @ 2% OF RS.62,00,000/- IS UNSUS TAINABLE IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS. 7. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, NO INTER EST U/S. 234A/B/C SHOULD HAD BEEN CHARGED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE , IN ANY CASE, THE CALCULATIONS ARE GROSSLY ERRONEOUS AND EX CESSIVE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE LEGAL ISSUE THAT PROCEE DINGS U/S.147/148 HAVE BEEN INITIATED AND COMPLETED ON TH E BASIS OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE NON-JURISDICTIONAL ASS ESSING OFFICER AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILING ITS R ETURN OF I.T.A. NO. 828/DEL/2020 4 INCOME WITH ITO, WARD-10(4) WHEREIN AS PER THE PAN AND ALSO OTHERWISE THE CORRECT JURISDICTION LIES BEFORE THE I TO WARD- 10(4) ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF IN COME ON 27.09.2010 BEFORE THE ITO, WARD-10(4) WHICH WAS DUL Y PROCESSED ALSO U/S. 143(1). THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S. 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 31.03.2016 WHICH HAS BEEN ASSIGNED A ND ISSUED BY ITO, WARD-10(1), NEW DELHI WHO APPARENTLY DID NOT HAD JURISDICTION UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF REA SONS RECORDED AS INCORPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER R EADS AS HEREUNDER: THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2 010-11 ON 27.09.2010 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.5,690/-. THE RETU RN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). INFORMATION WAS FORWARDED TO THIS OFFICE THROUGH TH E ADDL.CIT, RANGE-10, NEW DELHI THAT SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION WAS CONDUCTED BY INV. WING AT THE OFFICE OF SH. PRADEEP KUMAR JINDAL WHERE VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS/MATERIALS WER E SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. DURING THE POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION AND PERUSAL OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS IT WAS OBSERVED THA T SH. PRADEEP KUMAR JINDAL WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY PROVIDING CHEQUES/PO/DD IN LIEU OF CASH TO A LARGE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY COMPANIES THO ROUGH VARIOUS PAPER AND DUMMY COMPANIES FLOATED AND CONTR OLLED BY THEM. IT WAS ALSO EVIDENTLY ESTABLISHED BY THE INVE STIGATION WING THAT SH PRADEEP KUMAR JINDAL IS KNOWN ENTRY PR OVIDERS AND IS THE ACTUAL CONTROLLER OF VARIOUS COMPANIES/P ROPRIETARY FIRMS/PARTNERSHIP FIRMS. THEY CONTROL THESE ENTITIE S THROUGH VARIOUS PERSONS BY APPOINTING THEM AS DIRECTORS/ PA RTNERS /PROPRIETORS APART FROM NOMINATING THEM AS AUTHORIZ ED I.T.A. NO. 828/DEL/2020 5 SIGNATORIES FOR MAINTAINING THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF TH ESE ENTITIES BUT IN FACT ALL THESE PERSONS ACT ONLY AS THEIR STO OGES. THE CASH RECEIVED FROM THE RECIPIENT PARTIES FOR PROVIDING T HE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WAS FIRST DEPOSITED IN THE AC COUNTS OF THESE DUMMY FIRMS/COMPANIES IN THE DISGUISE OF THE CASH RECEIVED AGAINST THE BOGUS SALES, DULY SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FROM THERE, THIS CASH WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE DIFFERENT PAPER COMPANIES FLOATED BY SH, PRADEEP KUMAR JINDAL THROUGH A COMPLEX TRAIL OF TRANSACTIONS, SO AS TO HIDE THE AC TUAL SOURCES OF FUNDS OF THE LAST SET OF RECIPIENT COMPANIES OF SH. PRADEEP KUMAR JINDAL. IN THIS WAY, THE RESERVE & SURPLUSES AND THE CAPITA L ACCOUNT OF A SPECIFIC SET OF COMPANIES ARE ENHANCED WITH THE HELP OF THE UNEXPLAINED CASH RECEIVED BY SHRI PRADE EP KUMAR JINDAL, WHICH IS ROUTED TO THESE COMPANIES THROUGH THEIR DUMMY FIRM/COMPANIES. ONCE THE FUNDS OF THESE COMPANIES H AVE BEEN ENHANCED SUFFICIENTLY, ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THROUG H RTGS/ CHEQUE IN THE SHAPE OF THE SHARE CAPITAL, CAPITAL G AINS OR LOANS AS PER THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF THE RECIPIENT CL IENTS WERE PROVIDED TO THEM IN LIEU OF THE CASH RECEIVED FROM THEM. IN THIS WAY, THE CHAIN FOR PROVIDING AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY GETS COMPLETED. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE LIST OF ENTRIES THAT THE ASS ESSEE M/S G.K. BUSINESS CENTRE P. LTD. HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING AC COMMODATION ENTRIES AS PER DETAILS HERE UNDER:- I.T.A. NO. 828/DEL/2020 6 ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORTS RECEIVED FROM THE INVES TIGATION WING , I HAVE DOWNLOADED THE RETURN FROM THE ITD PORTAL AN D VERIFIED THE RECORDS AND IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY HAS NOT DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESS ARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION AS IT EMERGES THAT TRANSACTIONS SHOWN IN THE RETURN ARE N OT GENUINE. THE VALUE OF SHARE PREMIUM APPEARS TO BE VERY HIGH KEEPING IN VIEW THE TURNOVER SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE TURN OVER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NIL. I AM IN POSSES SION OF CERTAIN MATERIAL LIKE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH OF D UMMY DIRECTORS OF COMPANIES OF SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR JINDAL ) THAT DISCREDITS AND IMPEACHES THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ALSO ESTABLISHES THE LINK WITH THE SELF- CONFESSED 'ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS', WHOSE BU SINESS IS TO HELP ASSESSEES BRING BACK THEIR UNACCOUNTED MONE Y INTO THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS, THERE IS A DIRECT LINK BETW EEN THE INFORMATION/AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND THE I NCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. I HAVE, THEREFORE, REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME T O THE EXTENT OF RS.62,00,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT RELEVANT TO A .Y,2010- AMOUNT DATE CONDUIT COMPANIES THROUGH WHICH CHEQUE ISSUED 1000000 01.07.2009 M/S.EUTHORIA CAPITAL PVT. LTD 1500000 02.07.2009 M/S. PARSANDI LEASING & FINANQE PVT. LTD. 700000 04.07.2009 M/S, MAYANK MEDILAB PVT. LTD. 1800000 07.07.2009 M/S. INSTANT TRAVELS 8I TOURS PVT. LTD. 1100000 10.07.2009 M/S. INSTANT TRAVELS & TOURS PVT. LTD. 50000 16.07.2009 M/S.EUTHORIA CAPITAL PVT. LTD 50000 20.07.2009 M/S. MAYANK MEDILAB PVT. LTD. I.T.A. NO. 828/DEL/2020 7 11. THUS, THE SAME IS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SE CTION 147/148 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. MOREOVER, AS THE CASE PERTAINS TO A PERIOD BEYOND F OUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOR ISSUI NG THE NOTICE U/S 148, NECESSARY APPROVAL / SANCTION MAY KINDLY B E ACCORDED BY THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-4, NEW DELHI IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 151 W.E.F 01.06.2015. DATE : 27.03.2017 SD/- ( H.K. SHARMA) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(1), NEW DELHI. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO TICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY ITO, WARD-10(4) WHO IS JURIS DICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT THE REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORD ED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICER. HE POINTED OUT THAT WH ILE SEEKING APPROVAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 151, THE FORMAT CLEARL Y SHOWS THAT THE APPROVAL HAS BEEN SOUGHT ON THE REASONS RE CORDED BY ITO, WARD-10(1) WHO DID NOT HAD JURISDICTION. THEREA FTER, THE NOTICE U/S.148 HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 31.03.2017 BY ITO , WARD- 10(4), NEW DELHI. EVEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.147 /143 (3) HAS BEEN PASSED BY ITO, WARD-10(4) ON 30.12.2017. T HUS, PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY NON JURI SDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, I.E., ITO, WARD-10(1) AND EVEN T HE APPROVAL U/S.151 FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES HAVE ALSO BEEN GRANTED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE NON JURISDICTIONAL A SSESSING OFFICER, I.E., ITO, WARD-10(1). IT IS A WELL SETTLE D LAW THAT THE REASONS SHOULD BE RECORDED ONLY BY THE JURISDICTION AL I.T.A. NO. 828/DEL/2020 8 ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT BY DIFFERENT ASSESSING OF FICER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ BHAI JAYSHUKLAL SHAH VS. CIT, REPORTED IN (2020) 42 5 ITR 70; AND DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANOJ KUMAR VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 79 ITR (TRIBUNAL) 158 DE LHI. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE HAD DIRECTE D THE LD. DR TO OBTAIN A REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS T O WHETHER ANY REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY ITO, WARD-10(4), I.E., JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHETHER ANY APP ROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN U/S.151 ON SUCH REASONS RECORDED. AFTER OBTAINING THE INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. DR INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT THAT THE REASONS AS INCO RPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THE ONLY REASON WHICH H AS BEEN RECORDED AND SIGNED BY THE ITO, WARD-10(4). HOWEVER , HE SUBMITTED THAT, THIS WILL NOT MAKING ANY DIFFERENCE , BECAUSE REASONS HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED BASED ON TANGIBLE M ATERIAL AND INFORMATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS H AVE BEEN INITIATED U/S.147 AND ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED, T HEREFORE, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD ON THE ISSUE RAISED I N GROUND NO.1 BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT T HE CORRECT JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE LIES WITH ITO, WARD-10( 4) AND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148, THE INCOME TAX I.T.A. NO. 828/DEL/2020 9 RETURNS, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND 2016-17 WE RE FILED BEFORE ITO, WARD-10(4). THIS INFORMATION WAS ALREAD Y THERE ON THE RECORD AND EVEN THE PAN JURISDICTION MENTIONED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE ITO, WARD-10( 4). HOWEVER, THE REASONS AS INCORPORATED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY ITO, WARD-10(1), NEW DELHI AN D THE APPROVAL U/S.151 HAS BEEN SOUGHT FROM PCIT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY ITO, WARD-10(1) ON 30.03.2017, THEREAF TER THE NOTICE U/S.148 ISSUED BY ITO, WARD-10(4) ON 31.03.2 017 AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED BY THE SAME OFFICER ON 30.12.17. FOLLOWING CHRONOLOGY OF EVENT FROM THE RE CORDS PLACED IN THE PAPER-BOOK MAKES IT VERY CLEAR: DATE EVENT PG. NO. IN PB 27.03.17 REASONS RECORDED BY ITO WARD-10(1) NEW DELHI 2-3 30.03.17 APPROVAL U/S.151 BY PCIT ON REASONS RECORDED BY ITO WARD-LO(L) 16-17 31.03.17 NOTICE U/S.148 ISSUED BY ITO WARD-10(4) NEW DELHI 4 30.12.17 ASSTT. FRAMED BY ITO WARD-10(4) NEW DELHI 6. THUS, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PROC EEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED U/S.147 BY RECORDING THE REASONS BY NON JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, NOT ICE U/S.148 AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN FRAMED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT THE NOTICE U/S.148 IS A JURISDICTIONAL NOTICE AND THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER CAN VALIDLY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION U/S.147 AFTER RECO RDING THE I.T.A. NO. 828/DEL/2020 10 REASONS AND THEREAFTER ISSUING AND SERVING A NOTICE U/S 148 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE REASONS HAVE TO BE RECO RDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING T HE ASSESSMENT AS CONTEMPLATED U/S. 148(2) AND THE SAME OFFICER, I.E., JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S.148(1). BEING THE MATTER OF JURISDICTION, IT CAN NOT BE ENVISAGED THAT A NON JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICE R RECORDS THE REASONS AND SEEKS APPROVAL FROM THE HIGHER AUTH ORITIES AND THEN JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER TAKES OVE R THE PROCEEDINGS AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SUCH A N ACTION HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ILLEGAL, IN THE CASE OF PANKAJBHAI JAISUKH VS. ACIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS THAT, THE REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS RECORDE D BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER THE NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED BY NON JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THESE FACTS THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT SUCH PROCEEDINGS AR E BAD IN LAW. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS ARE AS UNDER: HELD, ALLOWING THE PETITION, THAT WHILE THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN RECORDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, VIZ., THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE 2, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8(1) HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), W HO HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE, AND HENCE, SUCH A N OTICE WAS BAD ON THE COUNT OF HAVING BEEN ISSUED BY AN OFFICE R WHO HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUCH NOTICE. IT WAS THE OFFIC ER RECORDING THE REASONS WHO HAD TO ISSUE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148(1) WHEREAS THE REASONS HAD BEEN RECORDED BY THE JURISD ICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED BY AN I.T.A. NO. 828/DEL/2020 11 OFFICER WHO DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSE SSEE. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 BEING A JURISDICTIONAL NOT ICE, ANY INHERENT DEFECT THEREIN COULD NOT BE CURED UNDER SE CTION 292B. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSIN G OFFICER, VIZ., THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE THE NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 148 ON OR BEFORE MARCH 31, 2018 AS MIGRATION OF THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITHIN TH AT SHORT PERIOD AND THEREFORE, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAD IS SUED THE NOTICE INSTEAD OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFI CER. THUS THERE WAS AN ADMISSION ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMEN T THAT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE 2, WHO HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 BUT IT WAS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2) WHO DID NOT H AVE ANY JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS ISSUED SUCH NOTICE. NO PROCEEDINGS COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN UNDER SECTION 147 IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH INVALID NOTICE. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(1) AND ALL THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN PURSUANT THERE TO COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. 7. HERE IN THIS CASE, THOUGH SITUATION IS REVERSE D THAT REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY NON JURISDICTIONAL ASS ESSING OFFICER BUT NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY JURISDICTIONAL ASSE SSING OFFICER. HERE IN THIS CASE, JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED THE REASONS AS MANDATED IN SECTION 148 (2). THUS, IT CAN BE CLEARLY INFERRED THAT THE NOTICE U/ S. 148(1) HAS BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT RECORDING THE REASONS, BECAUSE REASON RECORDED BY NON JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER CAN NOT GIVE JURISDICTION TO THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFICER. THE S AME PRINCIPLE OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WILL APPLY IN T HE PRESENT I.T.A. NO. 828/DEL/2020 12 CASE ALSO. HENCE, ON THIS GROUND ALONE, WE HOLD THA T THE PROCEEDING U/S.147/148 IS VOID AB INITIO AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND SAME IS QUASHED. 8. THE OTHER ISSUED RAISED ARE PURELY ACADEMIC HA VE BEEN RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2021 SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2021 PKK: