Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (7) TMI 654

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... jurisdiction - when the notice under section 148(1) Commissioner have no jurisdiction over the assessee on the date of issuance of such notice as the jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred to the Additional CIT passed under section 120 – it cannot be situation where two Assessing Officer would have simultaneous jurisdiction over the assessee, one being Additional CIT, Range-I, and other being ACIT, Range-IV appeal decided against revenue. - ITA NO 172/08, ITA NO 58/08 - - - Dated:- 28-5-2012 - RAJIV SHARMA and DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA JJ. Judgment: Sri D. D. Chopra for the appellant Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur and Sri Mudit Agarwal for the respondent. Income Tax Appeal No. 58 of 2008 arises out of the judgment and o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Ltd., Lucknow (here-inafter referred to as "the company"), is a private limited company and is engaged in the civil construction activity and is being assessed to tax since 1989-90 and onwards. The registered office of the company was located at the second floor, Karamat Market Complex, Nishatganj, Lucknow, till the assessment year 2001-02. On the basis of the location of its registered office, the jurisdiction over the assessee was with ACIT, Company Circle, Lucknow. The assessee had filed the return of income from the assessment year 1989-90 to 2000-01 with ACIT, Company Circle, Lucknow. Later on, there was change in the nomenclature of the Assessing Officers due to reorganization and restructuring in the Income-tax Department and juris .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cknow, vide letter dated April 19, 2004. However, the ACIT, Range-4 transferred the record of the assessee to the Income-tax Officer-1(I), Lucknow. Thereafter, fresh notice under section 142(1) dated January 27, 2005, was issued to the assessee by the Income-tax Officer 1(I), Lucknow, in continuation of the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer, Range-4, Lucknow. 7. The assessee has raised the objection with regard to continuation of the proceedings by Income-tax Officer 1(I), Lucknow, on the ground that the said proceedings are illegal as the notice under section 148 of the Act issued on April 6, 2004 itself was devoid of proper jurisdiction and ab initio void but the Income-tax Officer-1(I), Lucknow, without considering the obj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appeal No. 58 of 2008. 12. While entertaining Income Tax Appeal No. 58 of 2008, this court, vide order dated January 23, 2008, admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was without jurisdiction when the Assessing Officer issuing the said notice had valid jurisdiction while passing the assessment order in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02 just six days before the issue of notice under section 148. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the matter to the ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow, who, without issuing fresh notice under section 148 of the Act issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act, treating to be the pro-ceedings in continuation of the earlier notice. Therefore, notice issued under section 148 of the Act cannot be held as lacking jurisdiction but the Tribunal erred in not considering the contention of the appellant in the right perspec-tive and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 15. Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submits that for the purpose of shifting the registered office, the assessee followed the due process of law as provided under the Companies Act, viz .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates