In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged; firstly, the validity of reopening u/s.147 r.w.s. 148 on the ground that no notice u/s.148 was served upon the assessee in accordance with law; secondly, approval given by the Pr.CIT u/s.151 is purely mechanical; and lastly, addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,95,20,000/- under the head ‘capital gain’ on sale of property.
Sec. 147 & 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Reassessment— It is an admitted fact that neither notice u/s.148 has been served upon the assessee by the Assessing Officer nor has been sent at a proper address, thus, in the absence of any valid service of notice, u/s.148, which is condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction for reopening the case u/s.147, the entire proceedings gets void ab initio and is to be held as null and void - - VIKRANT TIWARI V/s ITO - [2019] 76 ITR (TRIB) 310 (ITAT-DELHI)
In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged; firstly, the validity of reopening u/s.147 r.w.s. 148 on the ground that no notice u/s.148 was served upon the assessee in accordance with law; secondly, approval given by the Pr.CIT u/s.151 is purely mechanical; and lastly, addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,95,20,000/- under the head ‘capital gain’ on sale of property.
Sec. 147 & 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Reassessment— It is an admitted fact that neither notice u/s.148 has been served upon the assessee by the Assessing Officer nor has been sent at a proper address, thus, in the absence of any valid service of notice, u/s.148, which is condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction for reopening the case u/s.147, the entire proceedings gets void ab initio and is to be held as null and void - - VIKRANT TIWARI V/s ITO - [2019] 76 ITR (TRIB) 310 (ITAT-DELHI)