Ita/515/2016 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19 v. Vimal Gupta

$~4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 515/2016PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 19 ..... Appellant Through:Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior StandingCounsel. versus VIMAL GUPTA ..... Respondent Through:Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate. CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%16.10.2017 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order dated23[rd]December 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’)in ITA No. 1211/Del/2010 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2006-07. 2. Although other grounds have been pressed by the Revenue regarding thevalidity of the impugned order of the ITAT holding the assessment orderpassed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) to be invalid,a threshold ground urged is that the ITAT erred in holding in the impugnedorder that the assessment made by the Additional Commissioner of IncomeTax (‘ACIT’) Circle 34 (1) was without jurisdiction. It has been noticed thatthe matter was transferred to the said ACIT by the Income Tax Officer(‘ITO’) Ward 34 (4), New Delhi without an appropriate order having beenissued under Section 127 of the Act. Further that the ACIT did not himselfissue the notice under Section 148 of the Act. 3. The ITAT has in para 13 of the impugned order specifically adverted tothe above aspect and correctly held that “The ACIT, Circle 34(1), NewDelhi has admittedly not recorded that he had reasons to believe that incomechargeable to tax of the Assessee has escaped assessment. He continuedreassessment proceedings initiated by the ITO, Ward 34(4) of the Actwithout independently recording reasons for reopening or issuing a freshnotice u/s 148 of the Act.” Further the ITAT noted that “There is no orderu/s 127 of the Act transferring the jurisdiction of the case from ITO, Ward34(4) to ACIT, Ward 34(1). Thus this order of reassessment passed by theACIT u/s 34(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction and hence is bad in law.” 4. In the present memorandum of appeal no attempt has been made by theRevenue to aver whether in fact there was an order under Section 127 of theAct transferring the case to the ACIT, Circle 34(1). That being the position,the impugned order of the ITAT cannot be faulted. In view of the aboveconclusion, there is no occasion to examine the other questions urged by theRevenue in this appeal. 5. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J. OCTOBER 16, 2017/dk PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.