Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (3) TMI 572 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2015 (3) TMI 572 - DELHI HIGH COURT - TMI - Vadity of Notice under Section 143(2) - Petitioner filed its return on 14.9.2012. The end of the Financial Year would be 31.3.2013 - Held that:- The purported notice dated 10.09.2013 issued under Section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assessing Officer at New Delhi had jurisdiction over the case.

This fact was immediately pointed out by the assessee/petitioner by virtue of its letter da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly the records of the case which were transferred and if the case itself had been transferred, the same would have to be directed under Section 127 of the said Act. No such order of transfer has been made and the above letter dated 16.12.2014 is indicative of the fact that the Bangalore Office of the Income Tax Department did not have jurisdiction in this case. - The first notice, therefore, which was issued by an Officer having jurisdiction was on 24.12.2014. This was issued clearly beyond the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

J (Oral ) 1. The writ petition is directed against the notice dated 24.12.2014 under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(3), New Delhi in respect of Assessment Year 2012-13 on the ground that the same is time barred. 2. The petitioner filed its return on 14.9.2012. The end of the Financial Year would be 31.3.2013. Six months therefrom would end on 30.09.2013. In other words, the notice under Sect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r at Bangalore was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assessing Officer at New Delhi had jurisdiction over the case. This fact was immediately pointed out by the assessee/petitioner by virtue of its letter dated 17.09.2013 where it had clearly indicated that it was regularly filing returns in Delhi and that the jurisdiction of the case was in Delhi. On this basis, it was requested that the said notice issued by the Bangalore office be withdrawn. Thereafter, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1) (1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version