2022 (12) TMI 1428 - HC - Income Tax

AO jurisdiction to assess the case of assessee - Tribunal held that after the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Mumbai had passed an Order on 19 December 2014 transferring the assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune the assessing officer at Mumbai had no jurisdiction over the file of the assessee on the date when the Order of assessment came to be passed on 24 December 2014 - HELD THAT - Tribunal rejected the argument of the revenue that the AO would continue to exercise the jurisdiction in the case of the assessee inasmuch as PAN of the assessee came to be transferred only 29 December 2014. It was held that the transfer of PAN is consequential to the Order of transfer of jurisdiction and that it is a PAN which follows the jurisdiction and not vice versa. In our view there is no illegality in the Order dated 9 August 2017 which has been passed by the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Order dated 9 August 2017 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Pune Bench for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
2. Transfer pricing adjustment made by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) of Rs.6,36,13,021.
3. Draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) made by assessing officer based on TPO's order.
4. Dispute Resolution Panel upholding TPO's findings.
5. Jurisdictional issue due to transfer of registered office from Mumbai to Pune.
6. Impugned Tribunal's decision regarding jurisdiction transfer and PAN transfer.

Analysis:

1. The appeal before the High Court of Bombay was made under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Order dated 9 August 2017 by the Income Tax Tribunal, Pune Bench for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made an adjustment of Rs.6,36,13,021 concerning international transactions with associated enterprises (AEs), which was a key issue in the case.

3. Subsequently, the assessing officer issued a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) based on the TPO's order, initiating the assessment process.

4. The assessee objected to the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel, which ultimately upheld the TPO's findings, indicating a dispute resolution process.

5. A significant issue arose due to the transfer of the assessee's registered office from Mumbai to Pune, leading to a jurisdictional matter. The Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra issued a transfer certificate, and the assessing officer's jurisdiction was transferred from Mumbai to Pune.

6. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the jurisdiction transfer and the subsequent assessment order passed by the assessing officer. The Tribunal ruled that the assessing officer in Mumbai had no jurisdiction over the assessee's file after the official transfer of jurisdiction to Pune, rejecting the argument that the PAN transfer date was relevant. The Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's decision, concluding that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal accordingly.