9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction over the assessee was vested with the income tax office of Rajkot and therefore the AO Mumbai has exceeded his jurisdiction by framing the assessment u/s 144 - At the time of hearing the DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the arguments advanced by the learned AR for the assessee. As such no other judgment favouring the revenue was brought to our notice by the learned DR at the time of hearing. We hold that the assessment has been framed by the AO having no jurisdiction over the assessee and therefore such assessment is not sustainable. Accordingly, we quash the same. Hence, the technical issue raised by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 138/Rjt/2020 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2022 - SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld. assessing officer has erred in law and on facts in disallowance of depreciation Rs. 8,97,770 on alleged ground that W.D.V. as on 31/03/2007 as per Balance Sheet and as per depreciation chart is different and depreciation provided in Profit Loss A/c is Rs. 5,39,952 and further, Note - 1 under depreciation chart reads as During the year until has not started it's commercial activity, hence no depreciation is claimed. 5. The Ld. C1T(A) - 1, Rajkot dismissed the request for additional evidences under Rule 46A of IT. Rules, 1962 on alleged finding that none of the conditions under Rule 46A is satisfied and dismissed the appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment under section 144 of the Act after making addition of various items. The assessee also challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 144 of the Act on the issue of jurisdiction before the learned CIT-A but the same was disposed off by the learned CIT-A by rejecting the ground of appeal of the assessee. The learned CIT-A was of the view that the application for transfer of PAN to Rajkot was approved on 10 August 2011 whereas the assessment has been frame under section 144 of the Act dated 31 October 2009. As such, according to the learned CIT-A, the jurisdiction over the assessee was of the Mumbai AO till the transfer of PAN. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place of business to Delhi and as such, the assessing authority at Lucknow, has no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act at Lucknow. In case, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply then he should have referred the matter as required under section 124(2) of the Act. 10.1 From the above judgment, there remains no ambiguity to the fact that jurisdiction over the assessee was vested with the income tax office of Rajkot and therefore the AO Mumbai has exceeded his jurisdiction by framing the assessment under section 144 of the Act. At the time of hearing the learned DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the arguments advanced by the learned AR for the assessee. As such no other judgment fav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
