2020 (2) TMI 1720 - AT - Income Tax

Territorial jurisdiction as per CBDT s notification No.50 of 2014 w.e.f. 15.11.2014 defining jurisdiction as per the postal PIN - appellant filed the return in Surat but the assessment was done in Kolkata - as per revenue assessee is a stopped from challenging territorial jurisdiction at this belated stage wherein the lower authorities have framed the same as per law. THAT - Hon ble apex court s landmark decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. 1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT as considered in All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. 2012 (7) TMI 222 - ITAT MUMBAI(SB) holds that an additional ground can very well allowed to be raised before the tribunal in order to determine correct taxable income provided all the relevant facts are on record. We make it clear that the assessee has already filed the necessary details of as it had filed its return in Surat only as it is evident from a perusal thereof in page-1 of the paper book. As further find from the department s record also suggests the assessee s jurisdiction is in Surat only. The same makes it clear sufficiently clear that impugned assessment in Kolkata suffers from lack of territorial jurisdiction. Thus reasoning mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned assessment since suffering from lack of territorial jurisdiction. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction based on CBDT notification.

Analysis:
The assessee challenged the Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction based on a CBDT notification defining jurisdiction as per postal PIN. The appellant filed the return in Surat, but the assessment was done in Kolkata. The tribunal allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee, citing relevant case laws. The tribunal found that the impugned assessment in Kolkata lacked territorial jurisdiction, as evidenced by the CBDT notification and the department's records. The tribunal referred to a previous order by a co-ordinate bench to support its decision.

Analysis:
The tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the jurisdiction issue. The appellant's representative provided evidence that the jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred from one CIT to another based on a CBDT notification. The tribunal found that the change in jurisdiction was valid and that the Assessing Officer in Kolkata did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. Citing a judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, the tribunal held that the impugned order passed without valid jurisdiction was not maintainable in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal on technical grounds and did not address the remaining issues raised by the assessee.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the impugned assessment due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The tribunal's decision was based on the CBDT notification and the subsequent change in jurisdiction, rendering the impugned order invalid. As a result, the issues raised on merits were deemed infructuous, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.