2014 (3) TMI 859 - HC - Income Tax

Jurisdiction of AO u/s 142(1) of the Act Place of initiation of inquiry - Held that - A bare perusal of the record shows that notice dated 24.12.2013 issued u/s 142 of the Act speaks that in connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 the petitioner was required to furnish in writing and verify in the prescribed manner information called for u/s 142 (2), the AO has been empowered to make such enquiry as he considers necessary for the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of the income or loss of any person - the main place of profession during the year of assessment in question shall be the place for assessment thus, the has rightly exercised his power u/s 142 of the Act - once the AO has arrived at conclusion that the jurisdiction is vested with him, which he has correctly arrived at, the provisions of Section 127 of the Act are not attracted, unless competent authority exercises his power u/s 127 of the Act Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of notice under Section 142(1) for assessment year 2011-12.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Senior Advocate primarily practicing in New Delhi, challenged the notice issued under Section 142(1) for the assessment year 2011-12, claiming it should have been issued by an officer in Delhi due to his principal place of profession being there. The petitioner argued that no order was passed to transfer the case jurisdiction, and the assessing officer wrongly determined jurisdiction beyond his authority. On the other hand, the Income Tax Department contended that the objection raised by the petitioner was time-barred and unsustainable in law since he did not object within the specified time after receiving the notice under Section 147(1). The department also highlighted that the petitioner filed his return for the assessment year 2011-12 in Lucknow, making it the main place of profession for assessment purposes.

The High Court analyzed the facts and legal provisions, noting that the notice under Section 142 of the Act required the petitioner to provide information at the office in Lucknow, where he had filed his return for the assessment year in question. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer had the power under Section 142(2) to conduct necessary inquiries for accurate assessment. Therefore, the main place of profession during the assessment year determined the assessment location, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner's main place of profession for the assessment year 2011-12 was in Lucknow. The court upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to exercise jurisdiction under Section 142 of the Act.

Regarding the question of jurisdiction, the court held that once the Assessing Officer correctly determined his jurisdiction, the provisions of Section 127 of the Act did not apply unless the competent authority exercised power under Section 127. Conclusively, the court found the writ petition lacking merit and dismissed it for being devoid of merit based on the observations made during the analysis of the jurisdictional issues raised by the petitioner and the Income Tax Department.