{"id":17862,"date":"2021-05-10T16:14:15","date_gmt":"2021-05-10T10:44:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/manjit-singh-v-dy-cit-it-2020-81-itr-454-195-dtr-121-207-ttj-1041-chd-trib\/"},"modified":"2021-05-10T16:14:15","modified_gmt":"2021-05-10T10:44:15","slug":"manjit-singh-v-dy-cit-it-2020-81-itr-454-195-dtr-121-207-ttj-1041-chd-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/manjit-singh-v-dy-cit-it-2020-81-itr-454-195-dtr-121-207-ttj-1041-chd-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Manjit Singh v. Dy.CIT (IT) (2020) 81 ITR 454 \/ 195 DTR 121 \/ 207 TTJ 1041 (Chd.)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee was a non-resident Indian. The Income-tax Officer Dasuya had no jurisdiction to initiate reopening of the assessment. However, thereafter he transferred the case to the Additional Director fully convinced that he himself had no jurisdiction to make the assessment in the case of the assessee. No notice under section\u00a0148\u00a0was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh to the assessee. Since the Income-tax Officer, Dasuya had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, any notice issued by him had no legal validity. The Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh did not issue any notice under section\u00a0148\u00a0to the assessee. Reassessment is held to be\u00a0 bad in law. Tribunal also held that under the provisions of section\u00a0127\u00a0the Income-tax Officer, Dasuya himself had no jurisdiction to suo motu transfer the case to the Deputy Commissioner. Rather, the transfer of the case under the provisions of section\u00a0127(1)\u00a0could be ordered by the competent authority prescribed in the provisions(AY.. 2009-10)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 147 : Reassessment-Non-Resident-No  jurisdiction-Transfer of proceedings to competent jurisdiction-No notice  was issued by  Assessing Officer of  competent jurisdiction-Reassessment not valid-Void ab initio. [S. 127, 148] <\/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-17862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-4E6","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17862","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=17862"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17862\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17863,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17862\/revisions\/17863"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}