1998 (11) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order u/s 124(2) of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the notices u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO).

Summary:

1. Validity of the order u/s 124(2) of the IT Act, 1961:
The petitioners, Dr. K.K. Loomba and Mrs. Uma Loomba, challenged the order u/s 124(2) of the IT Act, 1961, passed by the CIT, Delhi-VII. The CIT determined that since July 1984, the petitioners had shifted their business/profession and residence from Amritsar to New Delhi. Consequently, their natural jurisdiction lay with the AO in Delhi, as per s. 124(1) of the IT Act. The CIT concluded that there was no need for an order u/s 127 to transfer jurisdiction from Amritsar to Delhi, and the AO in Delhi was directed to make the assessments.

2. Validity of the notices u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961:
The petitioners also sought quashing of the notices u/s 148 issued by the Asstt. CIT, Investigation Circle 11(1), New Delhi, for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93. The court found that the issuance of notices u/s 148 by the AO in Delhi was valid, as the petitioners had shifted their business/profession and residence to Delhi since July 1984. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sardar Baldev Singh vs. CIT, which held that the AO with jurisdiction over the area where the assessee resides or carries on business can issue notices u/s 148.

3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO):
The court discussed the relevant provisions of ss. 120 and 124 of the IT Act, which determine the jurisdiction of IT authorities. It was held that each year's case is separate, and the assessee must file returns based on the AO's jurisdiction at the time of filing. The court cited several precedents, including Bidi Supply Co. vs. Union of India and Pannalal Binjraj vs. Union of India, to support the view that the AO in Delhi had jurisdiction over the petitioners after they shifted their business/profession to Delhi. The court also noted that the petitioners did not raise any objections to the jurisdiction of the AO in Delhi during the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the challenges to the order u/s 124(2) and the notices u/s 148. The court emphasized that the petitioners' business/profession and residence were in Delhi since July 1984, making the AO in Delhi the appropriate authority to issue notices and make assessments. The court also noted the delay in filing the petitions and the finalization of assessments as additional reasons for dismissing the petitions.