9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The brief facts are that the return of income was e-filed by the assessee on 04.08.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 17,04,650/-. The return of income was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). It appears that the case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny assessment to verify (i) deduction towards Capital Gains, and (ii) investment in immoveable property. Accordingly, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 04.09.2018, which was duly served on the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee submitted the details online. It may be mentioned that the assessee, inter alia, raised an issue about the territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, namely the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the AO, as also on other grounds, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the parties. The parties have also filed written submissions. We have gone through the same and the record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant referring to ground nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal has submitted that the CIT (A) was in error in refusing to uphold the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction with the AO. It is submitted that the CIT (A) ought to have held that the notice issued by the AO under Section 143(2) of the Act and the consequent assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act are without jurisdiction as per the provisions of Section 120 r.w.s. 124 of the Act. The learned counsel has taken us through the notice and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... torial jurisdiction of the AO is concerned, it is submitted that the AO vide letter dated 18.11.2019 had intimated appellant that proposal for migration of her PAN has been forwarded to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ('Pr. CIT' for short) and the PAN could be migrated only after an order is passed by the Pr. CIT, which has been done on 26.02.2021. The learned CIT-DR has also pointed that in the return of income filed by the assessee, the designation of the AO was shown as Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai and thus, the assessee could not have raised objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the AO. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, in reply, has submitted that strictly the migration of PAN and/or change of address in the record has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng lawyer practising at Bangalore. It is also a matter of record that the first return of income was filed by the appellant relevant to assessment year 2016-17, as according to her, in the prior years she had no taxable income. The assessment which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal is for assessment year 2017-18. It is further undisputed that the assessee upon receipt of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act had raised an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of AO within 30 days as mandated by Section 124(3) of the said Act. The record further discloses that she had also made request for change of address/migration of PAN to Bangalore on the basis of her residence/place of profession. The address was changed in the records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e place at which he carries on his business or profession is situate within the area, or where his business or profession is carried on in more places than one, if the principal place of his business or profession is situate within the area, and (b) in respect of any other person residing within the area." (Emphasis supplied) 13. It can thus be seen that by virtue of any direction or order issued under Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 120 of the Act, the AO has been vested with jurisdiction over an area within the limits of which the assessee is carrying on business or profession and in respect of any other person residing within the said area. Thus, a conjoint reading of Sections 120 and 124(1) of the Act, with the directions or o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mann.com 270 (Pune - Trib.) (supra) which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 457 ITR 775 (Bombay) (supra). 16. In the case of Abdul Azeez Haroon (supra), the assessee was a nonresident Indian. After the assessment was completed in respect of the relevant year, Commissioner (International Taxation) issued a reopening notice against the assessee at his address at Madurai (Tamil Nadu). The assessee contended that he was residing at Madurai prior to period relating to assessment year 2011- 12 and admittedly no return of income was filed by him during his stay at Madurai as he had no taxable income during that period. From assessment year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
