Proper jurisdiction and valid service of notices are essential for legal assessments, failure of which invalidates the proceedings.

ORDER

PER MAHAVIR SINGH – VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘the CIT(A)’, in Appeal No. NFAC/2011-12/10031376 vide order dated 06.06.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Jagraon, under sections 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 28.12.2019 for Asst. Year 2012-13.

2. The first issue raised by assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. For this, assessee has raised following ground nos. 2, 3 & 4 as under:

“2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and framing the assessment under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act framed without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions required for initiation of proceedings and completion of assessment and as such, the same are without jurisdiction and hence deserve to be quashed as such.

3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the initiation and thereafter framing of assessment under section 147 of the Act in as much as the assessment has been framed u/s 147 by the non- jurisdictional officer without any service of notice u/s 148 and in view thereof the assessment framed is illegal, untenable and therefore unsustainable.

4. That the reasons recorded are based on incorrect facts wherein it is mentioned that it was a non-PAN case and no return was filed by the assessee when in fact the assessee had filed her return for the year under consideration having PAN-AHFPK0713J and as such the assessment framed on the basis of incorrect facts is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.”

3. Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer received information that the assessee has purchased immovable property for a sum of Rs.1,00,21,000/- and sale deed was registered with Sub-Registrar, Rampura Phul office during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. Consequent to the information, the AO issued verification letter under section 133(6) of the Act. In response to this notice, nobody attended the office nor any written submission received from the assessee. Accordingly, reasons were recorded for initiating proceedings under section 147(a) of the Act and thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2019 was issued and served upon the assessee through registered post on 30.03.2019. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee fixing the case for hearing on 30.08.2019. On 30.08.2019, nobody attended and thereafter, another notice was issued to explain the source of immovable property of Rs.1,00,21,000/- registered through Sub-Registrar, Rampura Phul. Since, nobody attended, the Assessing Officer assessed the entire purchase consideration of Rs.1,00,21,000/- as income from undisclosed source under section 69 of the Act.

4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before CIT(A), assessee raised the ground of reopening vide ground nos.2.2 to 2.5 as under:

“2.2 That the notice under section 148 was sent to a place which never had any link with the appellant. No service was affected. That re-opening is bad in law and the order be quashed.

2.3 That the Ld. A.O. framed the assessment which is beyond jurisdiction and be quashed.

2.4 That the Ld. A.O.