9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Appeal No. 138/BKN/2009-10 while holding that the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer ['ITO'], Suratgarh to the assessee suffered from want of jurisdiction. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that on 05.03.2003, a survey under Section 133-A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the firm M/s Vardhman Mills, said to be proprietorship concern of the respondent-assessee. A notice under Section 143(2) dated 06.04.2004 was issued by the ITO, Suratgarh. In response thereto, the respondent-assessee stated that the ITO at Suratgarh had no jurisdiction in the matter for himself and the family were residing at Chennai for last 25 years and he was filing returns of income with the Income Tax Officer-VII(2), Chennai; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent-assessee in this Court on the issue of jurisdiction (CWP No. 6051/2007) was dismissed as infructuous on 08.07.2009. However, the ITAT, by its order dated 10.07.2009, remanded the matter to the CIT (A). Hence, the matter was before the CIT (A) for consideration afresh. In the impugned order dated 22.10.2010, the CIT(A) proceeded to re-consider the question as to whether the ITO at Suratgarh had the jurisdiction over the assessee at the time of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act; and ruled in favour of the assessee with the following observations and findings:- "......... it is evident that the appellant was filling his returns of income regularly with ITO-VII(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the case relating to another assessee Shri Gourav Surana, being the proprietor of M/s Gourav Industry, Suratgarh. The appeals in relation to the present assessee and the said other assessee were taken up for consideration by the ITAT together; and were dismissed by the impugned common order dated 17.05.2013. The ITAT took note of the akin facts relating to the case of the said assessee Gourav Surana and observed that the assessee was regularly filing his returns of income at Chennai and the return of income for the year under consideration had also been filed at Chennai. The ITAT found that the ITO at Suratgarh sent a proposal to the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax at Chennai for transfer of jurisdiction over the assessee from Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nai had transferred the jurisdiction to the ITO, Suratgarh by the notification dated 21.08.2007 with the observations that the transfer was for coordinated investigation because of the assessee's place of business being at Suratgarh. It is strenuously argued that in the given set of facts, the ITO at Suratgarh, the place where the assessee is residing and is having principal place of business, has the jurisdiction; and, therefore, the CIT(A) and ITAT have erred in holding want of jurisdiction with the ITO, Suratgarh. The submissions, in our view, do not make out a case for entertaining this appeal. As noticed by the Appellate Authorities, the proceedings were initiated on 06.04.2004, which were subsequently dropped on 18.10.2005. Thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
