Case decided in favour of :
In favour of : Assessee
Reassessment—Validity—Notice under s. 148 issued by non-jurisdictional AO—AO has not controverted that the
residential status of the assessee is NRI as on the date of issue of notice under s. 148—Further, the order-sheet
entry dt. 16th March, 2023 shows that Faceless Assessment Unit requested NaFAC to transfer out this case from
them because the case is of non-resident individual and can be assessed only at international charge—Thus, the
ITO, Ward-2(2), Ajmer had no jurisdiction when the notice under s. 148 was issued on 30th March, 2022—In order
to sustain the validity of reassessment, the reassessment notice is required to be issued by an AO having proper
jurisdiction over the assessee to whom such notice has been issued—Revenue could not demonstrate that when
the notice was issued on 30th March, 2022, ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer, had valid jurisdiction over the
assessee—Reassessment quashed
(Para 12.2)
Conclusion :
ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer having not controverted the fact that the assessee was a non-resident on the date of issue
of notice under s. 148, he had no jurisdiction over the assessee and, therefore, the reassessment made pursuant
to the notice issued by the said AO is not valid.
Cases referred to
Abdul Azeez Haroon vs. Dy. CIT (International Taxation) (2020) 317 CTR (Mad) 610 : (2020) 194 DTR (Mad) 306
CIT vs. Smt Anjali Dua (2008) 219 CTR (Del) 183
Daujee Abhushan Bhandar (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (2022) 325 CTR (All) 659 : (2022) 212 DTR (All) 1
Mir Zardari Qureshi vs. Asstt. CIT (2023) 151 taxmann.com 408 (Raipur)
National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (1999) 157 CTR (SC) 249 : (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)
Saroj Sangwan vs. ITO (2024) 162 taxmann.com 704 (Del)
Siemen Financial vs. Dy. CIT (2024) 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bom)
1 / 33
Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 326 CTR (SC) 473 : (2022) 213 DTR (SC) 217
Counsel appeared :
Mahendra Gargieya & Devang Gargieya, for the Assessee : Anil Dhaka, for the Revenue