{"id":12696,"date":"2020-10-07T08:37:18","date_gmt":"2020-10-07T08:37:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pankajbhai-jaysukhlal-shah-v-acit-2020425-itr-70-185-dtr-306-312-ctr-300-guj-hc\/"},"modified":"2021-07-16T19:10:24","modified_gmt":"2021-07-16T13:40:24","slug":"pankajbhai-jaysukhlal-shah-v-acit-2020425-itr-70-185-dtr-306-312-ctr-300-guj-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pankajbhai-jaysukhlal-shah-v-acit-2020425-itr-70-185-dtr-306-312-ctr-300-guj-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah v .ACIT ( 2019 ) 110 taxmann.com 51 \/    (2020)425 ITR 70\/ 185 DTR 306\/ 312 CTR 300 (Guj) (HC)\/ Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , Add .CIT v. Panjajbhai Jaysuklal Shah ( 2020) 275 Taxman 99 (SC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><An order 43(1)\u00a0was passed \u00a0us. 143(1) of the Act . A notice dated March 29, 2018 under section\u00a0148\u00a0was issued to reopen the assessment. The assessee submitted that the original return filed by him be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under S.\u00a0148\u00a0and requested the Assessing Officer to supply a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. . The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and raised objections against the initiation of proceedings under S. 147\u00a0on the ground that the assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer by issuance of notice under S. \u00a0148\u00a0was invalid contending that the notice was issued by the ITO, Ward No. 2(2), whereas the reasons were recorded by the Dy. CIT, Circle 2. The Department contended that issuance of the notice by the ITO was a procedural lapse which had happened on account of the mandate of e-assessment scheme and non-migration of the permanent account number of the assessee in time and that such defect was covered under the provisions of S. \u00a0292B\u00a0and therefore, the notice issued could not be said to be invalid. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that while the reasons for reopening the assessment had been recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, viz., the Deputy Commissioner, Circle 2, the notice under section\u00a0148(1)\u00a0had been issued by the ITO, Ward 2(2), who had no jurisdiction over the assessee, and hence, such a notice was bad on the count of having been issued by an Officer who had no authority to issue such notice. It was the Officer recording the reasons who had to issue the notice under S. \u00a0148(1)\u00a0whereas the reasons had been recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the notice had been issued by an Officer who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. \u00a0Accordingly no proceedings could have been taken under S.\u00a0147\u00a0in pursuance of such invalid notice. The notice under S. 148(1)\u00a0and all the proceedings taken pursuant thereto could not be sustained.( AY.2011-12)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S.147: Reassessment \u2014Officer recording reasons and issuing notice must be the jurisdictional Assessing Officer \u2014  Reasons recorded by jurisdictional Assessing Officer \u2013 E. assessment Scheme &#8211; Notice issued by officer who did not have jurisdiction over assessee \u2014 Defect not curable-  Notice and consequential proceedings and order invalid [ S.148 , 292B ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3iM","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12696"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12696\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20240,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12696\/revisions\/20240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}