AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2019-20. Grounds of appeal are as under :-
1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 issued in this case is bad-in-law, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation and, therefore, the said notice u/s 148 along with assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment proceedings initiated are contrary provisions of law including specific provisions of Section 147 to 151 of the Act and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned assessing officer and the addition made therein is bad-in-law and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
During proceedings before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by ITO Ghaziabad while the assessment order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Circle -19, Delhi. He further brought it to the notice of the Bench that for transferring the case from UP West i.e. Ghaziabad to the jurisdiction of Delhi an order u/s.127 of the Act was required to be passed but it has not been done in this case. Accordingly, he argued that the assessment order passed by the AO in Delhi without having any transfer of jurisdiction passed u/s.127 of the Act. The assessment order was liable to be quashed.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further argued that the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued by the AO on 17.04.2023 after obtaining the approval of PCIT. He argued that this approval is contrary to the provision of section 151 of the Act. As per section 151 of the Act if more than 3 years have elapsed since assessment year then approval of Principle Chief Commissioner or Pr. Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Director General was required to be obtained in the present appeal for the A.Y. 2019-20. Notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued on 17.04.2023 i.e. after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, the prior approval of PCCIT or Pr. Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General was required to be obtained which has not been done in this case as approval has been simply obtained from PCIT. Thus, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 17.04.2023 is bad in law and without jurisdiction.
Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below but he could not rebutt these jurisdictional issues raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
We have considered the documents and paper book filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and we find that the assessment order has been passed by the AO in Delhi while the notice was issued by the AO in Ghaziabad i.e. U.P West Ghaziabad. There is no order u/s.127 of the Act passed for transfer of jurisdiction from UP West to Delhi in this case. We also find that the notices u/s.148 of the Act in this case has been issued beyond 3 years without the mandatory approval of the PCCIT or Pr. Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General as required under Section 151 of the IT Act, 1961. Since these two jurisdictional issues are clearly against the revenue and the revenue has not been able to rebut these issues, therefore, in our considered opinion the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the subsequent assessment order passed deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal on these jurisdictional issues are allowed.
Since we have already allowed the appeal on legal or jurisdictional issue, therefore, we are not inclined to adjudicate other issues on merit.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.