Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.24 seconds)
Raj Singh, Gurgaon vs Ito, Gurgaon on 7 March, 2024 cites

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, New Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 9 February, 2017

The ITO Ward 3(5) Gurugram does not seem to have made any inquiry or the relevant issues before issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act to the Appellant. No material in this behalf has been brought before us by the Department. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Lt. Col. Paramjeet Singh vs. Cit (1996) 220 ITR 446 has ruled that if the assessment proceedings of an assessee is to be reopened or if the income for the relevant assessment year is to be reassessed, it is the Income-tax Officer who 22 I.T.A. Nos. 3033, 3031 & 3032/Del/2017 could assess the same in the first instance who has jurisdiction to proceed in the matter u/s 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, unless of course the case had been transferred by a competent authority to another AO u/s 127 of the Act. No such transfer order u/s 127 of the Act has been produced before us to validate the jurisdiction as assumed by the ITO, Ward 3(5), Gurugram. It is thus clear that the assumption of jurisdiction to reassess the Appellant by the Gurugram AO is irregular and fallacious. In a similar situation the Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Attar Singh & Ors. ITA No. 2682/Del/2018 dated 08.08.2019 has held that the assumption of jurisdiction by a different AO at Gurugram who was other than the AO holding jurisdiction over the assessee for the relevant year was invalid. Respectfully following that order and with facts being similar we hold that the assumption of jurisdiction by the ITO, Ward 3(5), Gurugram in the case of the Appellant is erroneous, illegal and void."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next