Sec. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Re-assessment—ITO did not have any jurisdiction over the assessee and, as such, the notice u/s 148 by the ITO being without jurisdiction was not valid.

Facts: Assessee has raised the ground that CIT(A) has grossly erred in not holding that AO, Dasuya had no jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s 148 specially, when it was duly intimated to the AO, Dasuya and Hoshiarpur that assessee is NRE.

Held, that assessee affirmed that he was a non-resident Indian and that the jurisdiction to assess him did not vest with the ITO, Dasuya. Thereafter, the ITO, Dasuya again issued letter to the assessee and after being satisfied, he himself transferred the case to the ADIT (International Taxation), Chandigarh for taxation. Thereafter, Ld. DCIT (International Taxation) neither recorded any reasons to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment nor issued any notice u/s 148 . The DCIT (International Taxation) continued proceedings from the stage these were left by the ITO, Dasuya. A perusal of the above sequence reveals that the ITO Dasuya did not have any jurisdiction over the assessee and, as such, the notice u/s 148 by the ITO, Dasuya being without jurisdiction was not valid. Though, the fact, that the assessee was a non-resident Indian, was duly mentioned to the ITO, Hoshiarpur and the entire record along with reply of the assessee was transferred to ITO, Dasuya, apart from that the ITO Dasuya also was informed vide separate replies, as mentioned above, that the assessee was a permanent resident of USA, ITO Dasuya, continued to proceed with the re-assessment and issued notices u/s 148. The fact that assessee was an NRI was very much on the record. Under the circumstances, ITO Dasuya had no jurisdiction to initiate reopening of the assessment by way of issuance of notice u/s 148. However, thereafter he transferred the case to ADIT (International Taxation) fully convinced that he himself had no jurisdiction to make assessment in the case of the assessee.VEven otherwise, as per the provisions of section 127, ITO, Dasuya himself had no jurisdiction to suo motu transfer the case to the DCIT (International Taxation). Rather, the transfer of the case as per the provisions of section 127 (1), can be ordered by the competent authority prescribed in the said provisions. In view of this, the reopening of the assessment by the DCIT (international Taxation) was not valid and the same is accordingly quashed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. - MANJIT SINGH V/s DEPUTY CIT - [2020] 81 ITR (TRIB) 454 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)