By Jagdish D. Shah
Jagdish T. Punjabi
Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
New Page 1Part B : UNREPORTED DECISIONS
(Full texts of the following Tribunal decisions are
available at the Society’s office on written request. For members desiring that
the Society mails a copy to them, Rs.30 per decision will be charged for
photocopying and postage.)
11 Dr. (Mrs.) K. B. Kumar v. ITO
ITAT ‘D’ Bench, Delhi
Before D. R. Singh (JM) and R. C. Sharma (AM)
ITA No. 4436/Del./2009
A.Y. : 2001-02. Decided on : 20-1-2010
Counsel for assessee/revenue : Ved Jain & Rano Jain/B. K.
Gupta
S. 148 — Reassessment completed by an AO on the basis of a
notice u/s 148 issued by another AO who had no jurisdiction over the assessee is
not valid.
Per D. R. Singh :
Facts :
The ITO Ward 21(3), Ghaziabad, based on information received
by him from Additional Commissioner, Range 1, Ghaziabad, regarding receipt of
Rs.5 lakhs on 19-2-2000 from Sanjay Mohan Agarwal recorded reasons of income
escaping assessment on 25-3-2008 and issued notice u/s.148 on 27-3-2008. In
response thereto, the assessee submitted to ITO, Ghaziabad that she has filed
her return of income with ITO, Range-48, New Delhi on 3-9-2001 and hence his
notice was without jurisdiction. Subsequently, the assessee, at request of ITO,
Ghaziabad, vide her letter dated 6-12-2008, submitted a copy of income-tax
return for A.Y. 2007-08 along with acknowledgment of receipt of AO, Ward, 34(2),
New Delhi.
The ITO, Ghaziabad transferred the case to the office of AO,
Ward 34(2), New Delhi who issued a notice dated 16-12-2008 to the assessee u/s.
143(2) of the Act. In response thereto, the assessee submitted her reply
mentioning that the proceedings had become time-barred and were illegal and the
proceedings need to be filed. The assessee received a letter dated 2-12-2008
from the AO, New Delhi assessing the income at Rs.9,6,380 by adding the gifted
amount of Rs.5,00,000.
The CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the AO.
The assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
Held :
The Tribunal following decisions in the cases of ITO v.
Krishan Kumar Gupta, (2008) 16 DTR 1 (Del.) (Trib.) 1; Ranjeet Singh v. ACIT,
(2009) 120 TTJ 517 (Del.) and CIT v. Smt. Anjali Dua, (2008) 174 Taxman 72
(Del.) held that the notice u/s.148 issued by ITO, Ghaziabad was without
jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment framed by the AO, Delhi is
invalid. The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the AO, Delhi.
