RAVINDER KUMAR,GURGAON V. ITO,WARD 3(5),GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 3546/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around the reassessment proceedings initiated against Ravinder Kumar for the assessment year 2012-13 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Gurgaon. The primary contention was the validity of the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the assessee challenged on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and mechanical application of mind in the reassessment process. The Tribunal examined the procedural aspects of the reassessment, particularly the jurisdictional authority and the manner in which the reassessment notice was issued.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298860 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: M.R. SAHU; CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT; WAY OF ADDITIONAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Reopening of assessment; Competent authority; Validity of assessment
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.3546/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) ITA No.3546/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2012-13) Ravinder Kumar, C/o CA M R Sahu, House No.651, 1st Floor, Sector 10A, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 PAN: AREPK-5090-R ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana 122016 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Shri M.R. Sahu, Chartered Accountant ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 28/02/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 12.06.2024, for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has filed additional ground of appeal on 22.11.2024 challenging validity of reassessment proceedings. The ld. DR of the assessee has raised objection to filing of additional ground of appeal by the assessee at second appellate stage. After examining additional grounds raised by the assessee, I am satisfied that the additional ground raised by the assessee are purely legal in nature 2 ITA No.3456/Del/2024 (AY 2012-13) and goes to the root of validity of assessment. No fresh evidence is required to be adduced for adjudication of said grounds. Hence, additional grounds raised by the assessee challenging validity of reassessment proceedings are admitted for adjudication. 3. The additional grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced herein under:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 3(5), Gurgaon erred in recording reasons to believe towards income escaped proceedings u/s.147 under wrong jurisdictional issues that the assessee has no PAN NO. and no income tax return was filed, accordingly whole income escaped assessment proceedings are bad in law thus assessment order dated 25/12/2019 passed by ITO, Ward 3(5), Gurgaon deserves to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, reasons to believe dated .27/03/2019 was recorded including notice u/s.148 dated 28/03/2019 was issued by the AO, Gurgaon who is non jurisdictional AO, thus in absence of order u/s.127(2) passed by the appropriate authority the income escaped assessment proceedings initiated by the AO, Gurgaon being non Jurisdictional AO are not valid thus the entire reassessment proceedings are bad in law, accordingly the impugned assessment order dated 25/12/2019 deserves to be held as null and void. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the initiation of the reassessment proceeding is bad in law and not valid because approval from the Competent Authority under section 151 was obtained in a mechanical manner and without application of mind.” 4. Shri M.R. Sahu, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits at the outset that reasons for reopening have been recorded without jurisdiction by the AO. He further contended that the reasons for reopening have been recorded in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO). While, recording reasons the AO has mentioned certain incorrect facts which shows that the reasons have been recorded in a mechanical manner. He pointed that while recording reasons PAN has not been mentioned. The AO in 3 ITA No.3456/Del/2024 (AY 2012-13) opening paragraph of the reasons as stated that the assessee has not filed return of income for AY 2012-13, whereas, the assessee filed original return of income for AY 2012-13 on 01.03.2013. Not only that the return of income was filed by the assessee the same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as well. The ld. AR further pointed that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 28.03.2019 by ITO, Ward 3(5), Gurgaon, whereas, on the date of issuance of such notice and recording reasons for re-opening he had no jurisdiction. The order u/s. 127(2) of the Act for change of jurisdiction from AO at Mumbai to AO at Gurgaon was passed on 11.12.2019. The ld. AR of the assessee placed on record copy of order u/s. 127(2) of the Act dated 11.12.2019, at page 17 of the paper book. He submitted that in light of the fact that the jurisdiction of AO was changed u/s. 127 of the Act much after issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the notice dated 28.03.2019 is defective, hence, liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Tiwari representing the department submitted that after issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 28.03.2019, another notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 13.12.2019 by ITO, Ward 3(5), Gurgaon i.e. after the order of transfer of jurisdiction from ITO-34(2) Mumbai to ITO, Ward 3(5), Gurgaon. It was thereafter, that the reassessment proceedings were carried out in the case of assessee. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional defect in the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. 6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The ld. AR of the assessee at this stage has confined his submissions only to the jurisdictional issue raised by way of additional grounds of appeal. The assessee by way of additional 4 ITA No.3456/Del/2024 (AY 2012-13) ground of appeal has assailed the validity of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and assumption of charge by the AO at Gurgaon without there being any order of transfer of jurisdiction from the Competent Authority. Form perusal of records it emanates that the reasons recorded for reopening on 27.03.2019 and the notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued on 28.03.2019 by the AO lacks jurisdiction. When the AO i.e. ITO, Ward 3(5), Gurgaon had recorded reasons and issued notice, he had no jurisdiction over the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee has placed on record copy of order passed u/s. 127 of the Act dated 11.12.2019 which explicitly shows that jurisdiction of the AO in the case of assessee from ITO, 34(2)(2) Mumbai was transferred to ITO, Ward 3(5), Gurgaon on 11.12.2019. In the facts of the case, I hold that the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act were issued by the AO before assuming jurisdiction over the PAN of assessee. Hence, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction, consequently the proceedings arising there from vitiated. 7. The contention of the Revenue that another notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the AO on 13.12.2019 is without any merit. A perusal of impugned order reveals that the AO has initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued on 28.03.2019 for which the approval was sought from the Principal CIT on 28.03.2019. There is no reference of subsequent notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 13.12.2019 in the assessment order. In light of glaring facts of the case, I hold the assessment order is invalid and quash the proceedings initiated based on notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued without jurisdiction. The assessee succeeds on additional ground of appeal. 5 ITA No.3456/Del/2024 (AY 2012-13) 8. Since, relief has been granted to the assessee on jurisdiction issue, the grounds of appeal raised on merits have become academic, therefore, are not deliberated upon. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 28th day February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 28.02.2025 NV/- ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "