Smt. Tasleem Bano Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued by the Assessing Officer [AO], having no jurisdiction, is invalid. Accordingly, assessment order and consequent proceeding are also invalid.
Facts- The appellant had deposited cash in his bank account. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 148 of the Income Tax Act with a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-pursuance of the appeal and merit also. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
The main thrust of the assessee is that impugned notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur which was without jurisdiction over the assessee and it was further accepted and authenticated by the Department itself by way of transfer of the case from Ward 5(1) to Ward 5(4) despite the fact that the jurisdictional AO in the present case was 5(2),Jaipur and thus it is invalid notice in the eye of law and assessment order passed by the AO,Ward 5(4), Jaipur pursuant to such notice is void ab-initio.
Conclusion- In this case, it is noticed that the AO, Ward 5(4), Jaipur made an addition of Rs.14,17,300/- in the hands of the assessee on the basis of materials available on record before him. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the ld. AO as mentioned hereinabove. The issue in this case is that the assessment made by the AO ward 5(4) is valid or not. From the facts of the case, it is noted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the AO ward 5(1), Jaipur and the ‘’reasons to believe” had been framed by him only which was not a jurisdictional AO. However, subsequent assessment proceedings were completed by the AO ward 5(4), Jaipur vide assessment order dated 03-10-2018. Actually, in the present case, the Jurisdictional AO is 5(2) who was to initiate the proceedings instead of other non-jurisdictional AO’s (supra). Hence, in the eye of law the assessment order dated 3-10-2018 passed by the Non-Jurisdictional AO,Ward 5(4) is invalid.
