Amit Kumar Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
ITAT Raipur held that order of transfer of case under section 127 of the Income Tax Act without granting opportunity of being heard to appellant is bad-in-law. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of CIT(A).
Facts- AO based on information gathered from NMS/ITS module that though the assessee during the subject year had made cash deposits of Rs.17,05,824/- in his bank account but had not filed his return of income, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 23.03.2018 was issued by the A.O.
Notably, though the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 23.03.2018 was issued by the ITO-1, Ambikapur, but thereafter, pursuant to the order u/s. 127 of the Act, dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Pr. CIT-1, Bilaspur the case of the assessee was transferred to ITO-3, Korba.
AO held that entire amount as his unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 16.12.2018 determined the income of the assessee at the same amount. CIT(A) upheld the addition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that the assessee had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing the impugned assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 16.12.2018 on the ground that the order of transfer passed by the Pr. CIT, Bilaspur u/s. 127 of the Act was not as per the mandate of law. I am unable to concur with the CIT(Appeals) that he was not vested with any jurisdiction to deal with the specific challenge raised by the assessee as regards the validity of the assessment order that was framed by the A.O de-hors a valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part in absence of an order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act as required per the mandate of law. I am of the view that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have taken call and adjudicated the aforesaid specific issue, instead of refraining from dealing with the same, which, thus, had resulted to multiplicity of litigation and pushed the assessee into further litigation on the said issue before me.
