Gaurav Singhal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi, for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The assessment had treated the assessee’s claimed exempt long-term capital gains of ₹49,67,060 as income from other sources, made an addition of ₹2,48,353 as undisclosed income on account of undisclosed expenditure, and levied tax under Section 115BBE. Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment on the ground that the Assessing Officer (AO) who completed the assessment lacked jurisdiction.
The assessee submitted that the return of income was filed with Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 40(1), which issued a notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time. Subsequently, notices were issued by ITO Ward 71(2), ITO Ward 71(5), and finally ITO Ward 17(4). The assessment under Section 143(3) was ultimately framed by ITO Ward 17(4). The assessee contended that the notice issued by ITO Ward 17(4) was beyond the prescribed time limit and that no order under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act had been passed transferring jurisdiction from ITO Ward 71(5) to ITO Ward 17(4). It was argued that a mere transfer of records could not be equated with a valid transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127. The assessee relied upon several Tribunal decisions holding that assessments made by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer without a valid transfer under Section 127 were liable to be quashed.
