9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 662 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction of income- tax authorities - Jurisdiction of AO to pass the assessment order in question - DR has submitted that since the name of the assessee was lying in the PAN database of Income Tax Officer, Kolkata and the assessee never informed the AO regarding its change of address, therefore, the Income Tax Officer, Kolkata was having jurisdiction to frame the assessment - HELD THAT - Since the assessee was incorporated at Siliguri and further carried on business at Siliguri only and there was never change of address, therefore, as notified by the CBDT, the jurisdiction in the case of the assessee lied with the Income Tax Officer at Siliguri. There is no explanation put forth by the Department as to why the name of the assessee was lying in the PAN database of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata. The assessee has been continuously assessed at Siliguri only. Even, when the Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the assessee objected to his jurisdiction. Hence, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer in this case was Income Tax Officer, Siliguri. The case in hand is not of change of the address of the assessee. The assessee right from the very incorporation has carried on its business at Siliguri only. Even the notice has been issued to the assessee at its Siliguri address. Even the address of the assessee in the assessment order has also been mentioned of Siliguri. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to pass assessment order. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) quashing the assessment order as null and void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer at Siliguri had jurisdiction to frame the assessment, but the notice under section 143(2) was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata, without jurisdiction. The CIT(A) considered the objections regarding jurisdiction and held the assessment order as null and void. The Revenue argued that since the assessee's name was in the PAN database of the Income Tax Officer, Kolkata, and the assessee did not inform about a change of address, the jurisdiction was with the Kolkata officer. However, the appellant maintained that the assessee was incorporated and operated in Siliguri, with all business activities there, and had consistently filed returns in Siliguri. The Tribunal referred to section 120 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that jurisdiction could be based on territorial area, persons, or classes of persons, and income or classes of income. The Tribunal found that as the assessee was incorporated and operated in Siliguri without any change of address, the jurisdiction lay with the Income Tax Officer at Siliguri. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on a Supreme Court case involving a change of address, stating that the present case involved the assessee's consistent operations in Siliguri. The Tribunal cited a decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in a similar context, where an order passed without jurisdiction could not be revived. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order due to lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the decision that the assessment order was null and void due to the Assessing Officer's lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of jurisdiction based on the assessee's location and activities, rejecting the Revenue's argument based on the PAN database entry. The decision was in line with legal provisions and previous court rulings, ensuring that assessments are conducted within the appropriate jurisdiction to uphold the integrity of the tax assessment process.
|
