9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, AM :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10-08- 2011 of the CIT(A) Central, Pune relating to Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and had made investment of Rs.12,70,000 in bonds/debentures during Financial Year 2004-05 which was reported in Annual Information Return furnished u/s.285BA of the Income Tax Act. On the basis of the above information, a notice u/s.142(1) was issued to the assessee by the ITO (CIB-2), Pune calling for the return of income for the A.Y.2005-06. Although notice was duly served on the assessee neither the assessee complied with the notice nor furnished any reply to the notice. Therefore, another notice u/s.142(2) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fer the AIR information to the jurisdictional Assessing Officers. Since in the instant case the assessee was not a non-existing assessee, therefore, the order passed by the ITO, (CIB-2), Pune having no jurisdiction over the assessee has to be annulled. He accordingly annulled the assessment order passed by the ITO, (CIB- 2), Pune. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us with the following grounds : "1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in annulling the assessment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the learned CIT(A) should not have annulled the assessment. Further, the learned CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merit. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) should be set-aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand reiterated the same submissions as made before the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee was a regular filer having PAN Number. Therefore, in view of the order passed by the CCIT, Pune u/s.120 of the Income Tax Act, the ITO CIB-2, Pune had no jurisdiction over the assessee to frame the assessment. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Sayali (Aparna) S. Patil vide ITA No.32/PN/2009 order dated 29- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore the order passed by him should be treated as null and void. We find the learned CIT(A) annulled the assessment on the ground that the ITO, CIB-2 who passed the order u/s.144 had no jurisdiction since the assessee is not a non-existing assessee. In the instant case, we find when the PAN Number was not appearing in the Annual Information Return and when the assessee never bothered to bring to the notice of the designated Assessing Officer that she is a regular filer of return and is also having PAN Number for which the jurisdiction does not lie with designated Assessing Officer, therefore, in view of the order passed u/s.120 of the Income Tax Act by the CCIT, Pune, the ITO, CIB-2, Pune had the jurisdiction over the assessee. We, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
