INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. SUMAN GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above captioned appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) -XXIV, New Delhi dated 17.09.2012 in Appeal No. 259/10 -11 for AY 2004 -05. The assessee has also filed Cross Objection to the impugned order of the CIT(A).

(2.) THE revenue has raised following sole ground in this appeal: - -

(3.) LD . AR replied that the first assessment u/s. 144/147 was framed by ITO Ward 26(1), New Delhi dated 30.11.2009 for AY 2004 -05, making an addition of Rs. 2,50,000/ - being accommodation entry received by the appellant. The AR further submitted that the reasons for issue of notice u/s. 148 were recorded by the ITO, Mandi Gobindgarh who issued notice on 23.4.2010 after due approval. The AR further pointed out that the assessee wrote a letter to ITO, Mandhi Gobindgarh dated 14.5.2010 pointing out to him that she was a regular assessee of ITO Ward 26(1), New Delhi and requested to shift the case to ITO Ward 26(1), New Delhi who had jurisdiction over the appellant. Ld. AR has further drawn our attention towards operative part of the impugned order and submitted that no new notice u/s. 144(8) of the Act was issued by ITO Ward 26(1), New Delhi and no reasons were recorded u/s. 147 of the Act and the AO straightway issued notices u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act and proceeded with the assessment which was finalised on 27.12.2010. Ld. AR submitted that the assessment was framed by ITO without acquiring jurisdiction by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act which was an incurable defect and, therefore, the CIT(A) was quite justified in quashing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act.