Reassessment – Notice u/s 148 of ITA, 1961 – Validity – Officer recording reasons and issuing notice must be the jurisdictional A.O. – Reasons recorded by jurisdictional A.O. but notice issued by officer who did not have jurisdiction over assessee – Defect not curable u/s 292B – Notice and consequential proceedings and order invalid

7. Pankajbhai
Jaysukhlal Shah vs. ACIT [2020] 425 ITR 70
(Guj.) Date of order: 9^th
April, 2019 A.Y.: 2011-12

Reassessment – Notice u/s 148 of ITA, 1961
– Validity – Officer recording reasons and issuing notice must be the
jurisdictional A.O. – Reasons recorded by jurisdictional A.O. but notice issued
by officer who did not have jurisdiction over assessee – Defect not curable u/s
292B – Notice and consequential proceedings and order invalid

For the A.Y.
2011-12 an order u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was passed against the
assessee. Thereafter, a notice dated 29^th March, 2018 u/s 148 was issued
to reopen the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. In response to the notice, the assessee submitted that the original return filed by him be
treated as the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 and requested the
A.O. to supply a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The
assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and raised objections
against the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 on the ground that the assumption
of jurisdiction on the part of the A.O. by issuance of notice u/s 148 was
invalid, contending that the notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward
No. 2(2), whereas the reasons were recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of
Income-tax, Circle 2. The Department contended that issuance of the notice by
the Income-tax Officer was a procedural lapse which had happened on account of
the mandate of the E-assessment scheme and non-migration of the permanent
account number of the assessee in time and that such defect was covered under
the provisions of section 292B and therefore, the notice issued could not be
said to be invalid.

The assessee filed
a writ petition and challenged the validity of the notice. The Gujarat High
Court allowed the writ petition and held as under:

“i)  While the reasons for reopening the assessment
had been recorded by the jurisdictional A.O., viz., the Deputy Commissioner,
Circle 2, the notice u/s 148(1) had been issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward
2(2), who had no jurisdiction over the assessee and, hence, such a notice was
bad on the count of having been issued by an Officer who had no authority to
issue such notice.

ii)   It was the Officer recording the reasons who
had to issue the notice u/s 148(1), whereas the reasons had been recorded by
the jurisdictional A.O. and the notice had been issued by an Officer who did
not have jurisdiction over the assessee. The notice u/s 148 being a
jurisdictional notice, any inherent defect therein could not be cured u/s 292B.

iii)  It was not possible for the jurisdictional
A.O., viz., the Deputy Commissioner, to issue the notice u/s 148 on or before
31^st March, 2018 as migration of the permanent account number was
not possible within that short period and therefore, the Income-tax Officer had
issued the notice instead of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Thus there
was an admission on the part of the Department that the Deputy Commissioner,
Circle 2, who had jurisdiction over the assessee had not issued the notice u/s
148 but it was the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2) who did not have any
jurisdiction over the assessee who had issued such notice.

iv)  No proceedings could have
been taken u/s 147 in pursuance of such invalid notice. The notice u/s 148(1)
and all the proceedings taken pursuant thereto could not be sustained.’