Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

06-09-2019, Inder Mohan Khurana, Section 148, 124(1)(b), Tribunal Delhi

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
1 week 1 day ago #10730 by amit
Section - 148, 124(1)(b), 124(5), 64, 147
Order Date - 06-09-2019
Favouring - Assessee allowed for statistical purposes
Court - Tribunal Delhi
Appellant - Inder Mohan Khurana
Respondent - ITO
Justice - AMIT SHUKLA JM & ANADEE NATH MISSHRA AM
Citation - 919Taxpundit59
Appeal No. - ITA No:- 6553/Del/2016
Asstt. Year - 2007-08

Order

PER : ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

A]. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.10.2015 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-17, New Delhi [in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(Appeal) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer had valid jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the proceedings u/s 147 and the consequential assessment order are not bad in law and therefore a nullity.

3. That the Ld.CIT(Appeal) erred in law and on fact was not acceptable and therefore the addition of Rs.66,50,000 was correctly made by the Ld. Assessing Officer.

4. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting the confirmation letter affidavit filed by Mr. Solo with Assessing Officer without examining Mr. Solo who had presented himself for this purpose.

5. That the addition of Rs.66,50,000/- made u/s 68 by the Ld.AO on the basis of suspicion and surmises may kindly be deleted.”

. Return of income was originally filed by the assessee on 30.10.2007 in the office of ITO, Ward-33(4), New Delhi. This return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “Act”]. On 31.03.2014, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act after recording reasons to believe, that income of the assessee had escaped the assessment. The jurisdiction of ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi to issue aforesaid notice dated 31.03.2014 u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was objected to by the assessee, contending that he had been filing his return of income with ITO, Ward-33(1), New Delhi. Therefore, the assessee contended before ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi that notice issued by ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi was not valid, as he did not have jurisdiction over the case. The objection of the assessee was rejected by ITO, Ward 24(3), New Delhi vide letter dated 01.08.2014 in the following words:-

“Kindly refer to the objections raised by your AR vide his letter dated 28.04.2014 for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act.

In this connection, the main objection raised by your AR is on the ground that the assessee has been filing his income tax return with ITO, Ward 33(1), New Delhi and that this office has no jurisdiction to issue the Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. In this connection, your goodself i informed that the notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act was issued after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority in terms of relevant section of the Income tax Act. Further, the territorial jurisdiction over the Sainik Farm Area, where the assessee resides falls in this Ward and as per section 124(1)(b), the notice was rightly issued by an officer who is competed to do so. Thus, the notice u/s 148 has been issued by an assessing officer who is competed to do so. Thus, the notice u/s 148 has been issued by an assessing officer who is competent to do so. Acc rdingly, there is no merit in the objections so raised and the same are hereby dismissed. You are directed to file your return of income immediately in terms to provisions of section 148 of the Income tax Act.”

[B.1]. The assessee petitioned vide letter dated 20.08.2014 of Joint Commissioner of Income tax, Range-24, New Delhi requesting for determining the jurisdiction of the assessee. The relevant portion of the aforesaid petition is reproduced hereunder:-

“We file this letter before your goodself for the determination of the lawful jurisdiction of the abovementioned assessee and for identification of the assessing officer having jurisdiction over the assessee.

FACTS:

1. Mr. Inder Mohan Singh Khurana, an assessee having income from business, has been regularly running his business operations from the premises 4/5917, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005.

2. He has been regularly filing his income returns with Ward 33(1), having jurisdiction over the abovementioned Karol Bagh address. Copies of the income tax return acknowledgements for the last three years are attached herewith in support of this statement. Also attached is the income tax return acknowledgement for AY 2007-08 which was also filed with Ward 33.

3. On 1.4.2014, the assessee received a notice U/s 148, reopening his case for AY 2007-08. Such notice was sent by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(3). Copy of the notice is attached herewith.

4. The assessee filed his objection to such notice issued on 28.4.2014, on the ground that the same was issued without jurisdiction and was therefore invalid and non est. Copy of the objection filed is also submitted herewith.

5. The ITO, Ward 24(3), vide his letter Dt. 1.8.2014, conveyed his non-acceptance of the assessee's contention of incorrect jurisdiction. Copy of such letter is attached.

CONTENTIONS:

1. For the past many years, the assessee has regularly been assessed in Ward 33(1) which includes Karol Bagh, where he carries on his business. Tins is also In accordance

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Inder Mohan Khurana vs. ITO

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.088 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur Read More
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT Read More
Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT Read More
ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar