Vipul Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act issued by ITO, who didn’t have jurisdiction over the assessee, instead of DCIT is unwarranted. Thus, assessment order based on invalid notice is not sustainable.
Facts- During assessment proceedings, AO noticed that the assessee has transacted with the scrip of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. (TTE) and observed that the relevant scrip is one of the various scrips which were involved in generation of fictitious long term capital gain.
AO treated the TTE scrip as penny stock and by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad More vs. CIT and other decisions in relation to section 68, he treated the long term capital gain declared by the assessee as unexplained credit u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act and also further added the commission incurred by the assessee for availing the above LTCG income and made the addition u/s 69C read with section 115BBE relating to commission paid to the extent of Rs.6,55,011/-.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. It is additionally contested that notice u/s. 143(2) issued in this case is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction.
