9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at New Delhi that its registered office having been shifted, jurisdiction over it vests with the Bangalore income-tax office. Ld.AO, if he was not in agreement with the assessee, ought to have made a determination of the issue of jurisdiction, when assessee had questioned it, in the manner laid down in section 124(4) of the Act, which apparently was not done. This being the factual position, we are of the opinion that DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi had no jurisdiction on 5/12/2008 to pass reassessment on assessee. We uphold the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. - ITA No. 1128/Bang/2015, Cross Objn.No.209/Bang/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-12-2015 - Shri Abraham P George, Accountant Member And Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member For the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007. The said notice was issued by the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi. Assessment was thereafter completed by making an addition of ₹ 1,17,40,339/- through a disallowance of inventory write-off, by the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi. 3. Assessee moved in appeal before CIT(A). One of the contentions raised was that the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi had no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 147 of the Act. As per assessee, this case already stood transferred to Bangalore and it was duly intimated to the Department. Assessee also pointed out that original assessment was completed under section 143(3) wherein the claim of loss arising on account of write off of inventory which was subject matter of addition made in the reassessment was alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ab initio void. 4. Now, before us, learned DR assailing the order of CIT(A), submitted that assessee had not produced any orders from competent authority allowing its transfer of jurisdiction from New Delhi to Bangalore. Per contra, ld.AR supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Revenue has not disputed the finding of CIT(A) that assessee had informed change in registered office from New Delhi to Bangalore on 20/10/2005. It is also not disputed that assessments for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 were done by ACIT, Circle 11(4), Bangalore on 6/12/2007 and 29/9/2008 prior to the impugned assessment done by the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi on 5/12/2008 for assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
