TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alia, on the ground that notice issued under section 148(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by ACIT, Range IV, Lucknow, was without jurisdiction and invalid. 2. Income Tax Appeal No. 172 of 2008 arises out of the judgment and order dated May 30, 2008, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Appeal No. I. T. A. No. 278/Luc./2008 for the assessment year 1997-98, whereby the appeal preferred by the Department against the order cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the assessment year 1997-98 was dismissed, inter alia, on the grounds that since the Tribunal, vide order dated September 7, 2007, passed in I. T. A. No. 111/Luc./20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., New Janpath Complex, 9A Ashok Marg, Lucknow, with effect from November 22, 2001. 5. The CCIT, Lucknow, while exercising power vested under section 120 of the Act revised the territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, with effect from August 1, 2001, and as per the fresh order so passed, the jurisdiction over the corporate assessees vested with the Assessing Officer exercising the jurisdiction as per location of their respective registered offices and as the registered office of the respondent-assessee has shifted at Ashok Marg/Hazratganj, Lucknow, the jurisdiction is vested with the Additional CIT, Range-I, Lucknow, and as such, the assessee filed its returns of income for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Lucknow, who, vide order dated November 23, 2005, dismissed the appeal, against which, the assessee preferred a second appeal, bearing No. 111/LUC/2006, before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow. 9. During the pendency of the above second appeal, penalty order dated March 8, 2006, was passed by the Assessing Officer against the assessee, against which, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Lucknow, who, vide order dated January 31, 2008, allowed the appeal and cancelled the penalty order dated March 8,2006. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue preferred a second appeal, bearing No. I. T. A. No. 278/Luc/2008, before the Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Appeal No. 58 of 2008, the Tribunal, vide order dated May 30, 2008, dismissed the appeal, bearing No. I. T. A. No. 278/Luc/2008, inter alia, on the grounds that since the Tri-bunal, vide order dated September 7, 2007, passed in I. T. A. No. 111/Luc./2006, cancelled the reassessment order relating to the assessment year 1997-98, as stated hereinabove, on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has levied penalty, as such, the penalty cannot stand by itself and the same is liable to be cancelled. 14. Sri D. D. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the asses-see had not informed to the Income-tax Department about shifting of its office at sixth floor, New Janpath Complex, 9A Ashok Marg, Lucknow, and as such, compute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been given to the income-tax authorities. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal has no illegality and infirmity. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we are of the view that on March 29, 2004, when the notice under section 148(1) of the Act was issued, ACIT, Range-IV, Lucknow, have no jurisdiction over the assessee on the date of issuance of such notice as the jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred to the Additional CIT, Range-I, Lucknow, vide order dated August 1, 2001, passed under section 120 of the Act by the CCIT, Lucknow. Therefore, it cannot be situation where two Assessing Officer would have simultaneous jurisdiction over the assessee, one being Additional CIT, Range-I, Lucknow, and o....