9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the statutory alternative remedy is not maintainable. 4. It is submitted by Shri R.P. Agarwal that the petitioner company is registered under the Companies Act having its registered head office at Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi and is filing its income tax return with the Assessing Officer, Ward-3 (1), New Delhi, which alone has jurisdiction in the matter of the petitioner. A notice was issued on 23.2.2004 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 (1), Agra,-respondent no.1 seeking information in respect of assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02, which was submitted by the petitioner in which it was also stated that the petitioner was assessed to tax at Ward No.3 (1), New Delhi. 5. On 30.3.2006 a notice under Section 148 was issued by the respondent no.1 for the assessment 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 yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue of notice u/s 148 was found as bogus, as it was assessee's own income from undisclosed sources. The respondent no.1 further wrote that since the case is time barring one, the bunch of papers i.e. Form of recording reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 148 (in original), notice under Section 148 duly served upon the assessee was enclosed. The reply of the assessee along with vakalatnama of his counsel and photocopy of the return filed for the assessment year 1999-2000 at New Delhi, and order sheet are transferred as jurisdiction of the case lies with the addressee. The request was made to take necessary action keeping in view that the case was time barring. 9. The office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 (1), Central Revenue Building, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otocopy of the return filed for the Asstt. Year 1999-2000 at New Delhi and order sheet (One volume) are transferred to your Circle as the jurisdiction over this case lies with your. You are requested to please take necessary action keeping in view the facts that this is a time barring one. Yours faithfully, (Rajender Kaur Kalra) Income Tax Officer 4 (1), Agra" 12. The DCIT, Circle-3 (1), New Delhi again returned the papers back to the respondent no.1 with request to do needful with covering letter dated 13/15.11.2006, putting the blame on her that she had simply forwarded the folder back to the undersigned, whereas she was required to decide the objections. She was advised by DCIT, Circle-3 (1) in para 1 of the letter that if she wants the case to be transferred 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- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... naming the assessee as one, who had obtained bogus loans would not be sufficient to hold that the assessee's income had escaped assessment. 17. At this stage the petitioner filed the writ petition and obtained interim order on 31.1.2007, directing that as an interim measure recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment order and demand notice shall remain stayed. 18. In the counter affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Income Tax Inspector, Ward-4 (1), Agra it is stated that the jurisdiction of the company cases vests with Range-4, Agra and having alphabets A-G vests with ITO-4 (1), Agra and thus action taken under Section 147/148 was validly taken. The notice was addressed at 21/2-, Chiman Lal Road, Freeganj, Agra, which 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 accomp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee filed electronic return declaring income Nil on 30.10.2007, assessee's company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of wheat products like Aata, Maida and Suji. The bank statements were produced and examined and the account books were called for examination on test check basis. The assessee was assessed at an income of Nil. The petitioner has annexed Form No.18 with its registration on 19.10.2000 disclosing that the registered office of the company was changed from Y-192, Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi to Room No.9, Y-3C, Loha Mandi, Naraina, Agra w.e.f. 3rd October, 2000. The company has not disclosed taxable income in any of the years beginning from 1991 to 2011. 20. It is not denied that the petitioner carries 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 losse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Union of India [1993] 200 ITR 697 (Bom.); CIT v. Ganga Bani Mercantile & Finance (P.) Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 441; Raza Textiles Ltd. v. ITO AIR 1973 SC 1362; Mayuri Mittal v. Union of India Writ Petition No.1439 of 2005 decided by this Court; Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396; CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad [2006] 280 ITR 541; CIT v. Mascomptel India Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 58; R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163; Delhi Developer Authority v. H.C. Khurana AIR 1993 SC 1488 and CIT v. Rajeev Sharma [2011] 336 ITR 678 in support of his submissions. 24. Section 124 provides for jurisdiction of Assessing Officer. Sub-section (1) applies 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion at the assessee's principal place of business, would have the power to call for return of the assessee's total income, which includes income of all the branches of the business. He may call for the records pertaining to any branch office even if independent enquiries have been made and the accounts have been examined by the A.O. having jurisdiction at the branch office. It is open to the A.O. having jurisdiction at the branch office to frame an estimate of the profits of that branch and to send that estimate to the A.O. at the tax payer's principal place of business. The effect of sub-section (1) and (5) of Section 124, read together is that where two or more A.O. have 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 Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
