TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which reasons were recorded by Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Agra in the notice under Section 148 that the income of Rs. 1,32,45,426/- of the assessee for the year 1999-2000 has escaped assessment. The limitation will expire on 31.12.2006. The respondent no.1 took extreme caution and care before assuming jurisdiction, which was concurrently vested in her. The petitioner admittedly has a branch office and principal place of business at Agra. The respondent no.1, as A.O., send the matter firstly to DCIT, Circle-5 (1), New Delhi and thereafter DCIT, Circle-3 (1), New Delhi which was very surprising as to why these officers at Delhi did not take over the jurisdiction. They simply returned the papers back to respondent no.1, firstly by advising her to pass order in view of G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s case (2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT) and thereafter returning the papers on the ground that the assessment order of the year 1999-2000, was not accompanied with the letter. It appears that the Assessing Officer at Delhi were either trying to avoid or had some reasons not to assume jurisdiction over the matter. The respondent no.1, before proceedings with the matter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 1999-2000 at the petitioner's address at 21/20, Chiman Lal Road, Freeganj, Agra. The notice was returned by the branch office of the petitioner on the ground that it was not addressed to its principal place of business at Delhi. 6. It is stated that notice was, thereafter, sent on the same day on 30.3.2006 to the petitioner at its address at Y-192, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi in respect of assessment year 1999-2000, which was received by the petitioner on 10.7.2006 . The petitioner filed objections to the notice to respondent no.1 challenging the jurisdiction annexing therewith photocopy of the returns for the assessment years 1999-2000 and assessment year 2005-06. The petitioner also stated that the notice is barred by limitation as it has been issued 6 years after the end of the relevant assessment year. It is alleged that the reply was directed to be transferred to Delhi immediately as it was time barring case. 7. It is stated that the notice was issued on 21.9.2006 by respondent no.1 under Section 142 to the branch office of the petitioner at Agra at 21/2-, Chimanlal Road, Freeganj, Agra with the PAN numbers of different persons fixing 29.9.2006. The petitioner's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Delhi by its letter dated 20.10.2006 returned the record to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 (1), Agra- the respondent no.1, with remarks in para 4 that in view of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19, the objections filed by the assessee should be disposed off before passing the assessment order. Since the assessee had raised objections on technical ground, his office is unable to pass any order. A note was appended at the bottom of page 1 in para 5 that the present jurisdiction over the case lies with ACIT, Circle-3 (1), New Delhi. 10. It is stated that on 25.10.2006, DCIT, Circle-5 (1), New Delhi with copies to Addl. CIT, Range-5 and Addl. CIT, Range-3, New Delhi sent a letter to the respondent no.1 referring to her letter dated 4.10.2006 that no such return of the assessment year 1999-2000 as referred to in the letter was enclosed in the envelope. In the absence of the assessee's return for the assessment year 1999-2000 the assessment proceedings cannot be carried out. The case was reopened basing on the information received from Addl. DCIT (Inv), Agra but no such information was enclosed/ forwarded. In para 3 of this letter dated 25.10.2006 the DCIT, Circl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransferred for any reason, that can be done only by the order of CIT under Section 127, and not by simple transfer by post. 13. In the circumstances mentioned as above, the Income Tax Officer (Tech.) acting for Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Agra advised the respondent no.1 by his letter dated 23.11.2006 as follows:- "To The Income-tax Officer; 4 (1), Agra. Madam, Sub: Transfer of case in respect of CR Foods (India) Pvt. Y-192, Lohamandi, Narayana, New Delhi: PAN AAACC5019N-Regarding-Please refer to the above. In this connection I have been directed to enclose herewith the copy of letter of Dy. CIT, Circle 3 (1), New Delhi dated 13.11 with request you to please furnish your report immediately as the same is to be put up before the Ltd. CIT-11, Agra on 27.11.2006 as the time barring matter is involved and limitation is expiring on 31.12.2006. Encl: As above. Yours faithfully, (G.M. Qureshi) Income-Tax Officer (Tech.) For Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Agra" 14. In the circumstances, the respondent no.1 sent a letter to the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Agra on 23.11.2006 giving him entire details of the correspondence, and requesting that since the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to have been received, but instead it was refused. The notice under Section 148 was thereafter sent to the petitioner at its Delhi address, Y-192, Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi. In para 12 it is stated that no such letter of ITO dated 23.3.2004 was stated to have been written to the petitioner and in response therein letter dated 19.3.2004 available on the record claimed to have been received by the office of respondent no.1 on 22.3.2004 accompanying the fact that the petitioner was assessed to tax at Delhi in Ward No.3(1), New Delhi. There was no question of referring the matter under Section 124 as the respondent no.1 is the competent authority. She had taken the necessary approval from the concerned Addl. Commissioner of the Income Tax, Range-4, Agra on 28.3.2006. In para 24 it is stated that notice under Section 148 was sent to the petitioner's Delhi office only under the circumstances, when the notice was refused to be taken at the petitioner's Agra office. The petitioner used his address of Agra office for the purposes of taken entries, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Before framing the assessment order, under reference the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rries on business of running floor mill, which is situate at Agra, and all business operations at Agra. In the entire income tax record assessed by the petitioner he has not shown any business operations to be carried out at Delhi, and has been returning loss for the last more than 20 years. His returns were accepted mechanically except in one or two assessment years, when assessment orders were passed without much discussion, and all returning losses. 21. In the search and seizure operations carried out in Ganga Ram Agrawal group of cases consisting of Shri Gantam Ram Agrawal; Shri Om Prakash Agrawal; Shir Ram Niwas Agrawal and their family members it was found that loans of Rs. 1,32,45,426/- given to the assessee (M/s CR Foods (India) (P.) Ltd.), are bogus and was nothing but the assessee's own undisclosed income routed through the party namely Shri Ganga Ram group of persons. It was found that in the financial year 1998-99 the petitioner had taken loans from following persons:- "M/s Ganga Ram Vinod Kumar Rs.34,04,225 Shree Ganga Ram Agarwal Rs.41,95,453 M/s Devi Sahai Vinod Kumar Rs.42,96,392 Shree Vinod Kuma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s where an AO has been directed to perform his functions in respect of specified areas under Section 120 (1) or (2) of the Act. When a question arise as to whether the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question is to be determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, or where it relates to the jurisdiction of different Director Generals or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioners concerned or if they are not in agreement by the Board of Such Director Generals or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners as the case may be notified in official gazette. Sub-section (3) places restrictions on the persons to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, where he has made a return under sub-section (1) of Section 139 after expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142, of sub-section (2) of Section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. under sub-section (3) (b) where he has made no such return after the expiry of time allowed by notice under Section 142 (1) or under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e territorial jurisdiction in respect of same income, they exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the matter of issuing notice to the assessee and where notices have been issued by any one officer, it is unnecessary for the other office to issue the same notice again. 28. In the present case we find that the petitioner had changed his registered office w.e.f. 4th November, 1989 from first floor and 6376 Naya Bans Delhi to Y-192, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi, and thereafter w.ef. 3rd October, 2000 from Y-92 Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi to Room No.9, Y-3C, Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi. The principal place of business is at Agra, where he has a floor mill. In his affidavit filed in the High Court, Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal has described himself to be working as Director of the petitioner company and has given his address as 6/26, Bhai Gali, Belanganj, Agra. He has not annexed the acknowledgment of return or assessment order of the year 1999-2000, with which we are concerned in the present case. It was in the search and seizure operations carried out in Ganga Ram Agrawal Group of cases, a report was sent by Addl. CIT (Inv), Agra on 10.12.2003 reporting the debts of the assessee in the book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
