TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluding such income in the return to be filed. On 8.5.1995, he wrote a detailed letter to the Assessing Officer retracting his statement dated 21.4.1995. 2. On 26.3.1996, the assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 before the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Rajkot who was the Assessing Officer under normal circumstances. The assessee having been subjected to search operations, however, such return was transferred to the A.C.I.T. (Investigation), Rajkot. Such return was processed under section 143(3) of the Act. The A.C.I.T. (Investigation), Rajkot framed his scrutiny assessment with respect to assessment year 1994-95 on 27.3.1997. 2.1 The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1995-96 on 26.3.1997. Such return of income was processed under section 143(3) of the Act and assessment was framed on 27.11.1997 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Rajkot. 2.2 For the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee filed his return of income on 6.1.1998 before the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Rajkot. Such return was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act without any scrutiny. This assessment the Assessing Officer desired to reopen under se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the other hand, principally the stand of the Department is that the assessee having been subjected to search operations, by virtue of notifications issued by the Department, the A.C.I.T. (Investigation), Rajkot was the proper officer who had the jurisdiction to assess the income of the assessee. The assessee having filed the returns before the wrong officer who had no jurisdiction, such returns were non est. Since therefore the assessee had not filed any valid return, his income could be assessed under section 147 of the Act. 7. Principally around this controversy, learned counsel for both the sides have made detailed submissions. Learned counsel Shri J. P. Shah for the petitioner drew our attention to various documents and record to contend that the assessee had been filing returns before his normal Assessing Officer. The assessee had no idea that by virtue of search operations, the returns should be filed before the A.C.I.T. (Investigation), Rajkot. The Assessing Officer, Ward 1(2), Rajkot before whom such returns were filed, ought to have transferred the returns as was done with respect to assessment year 1994-95. Counsel drew our attention to the relevant statutory provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of the assessee and therefore, his notice was without jurisdiction and therefore, fresh notices issued by the Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-4, New Delhi were valid. The Apex Court confirmed the view of the Rajasthan High Court. The Apex Court noted that in the case on hand, the return was submitted to an Income Tax Officer who had no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, over the assessee. [b] In case of Sanwarmal Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another, reported in (1998) 229 ITR 783, wherein the Gauhati High Court dismissed the assessee's writ petition challenging a notification issued under section 120 of the Act, observing that the income tax authorities under the scheme of the Act are authorized to exercise their power and to give full effect to the provisions of the Act and to make the Act fully operative. It was held that the Commissioner as the superior authority may transfer a case to any of the Income Tax Officer or Officers having concurrent jurisdiction, who are subordinate to him. While doing so, he is required to take into account the criteria specified in section 127 of the Act. [c] In case of B. R.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter 1.4.1993 and who are residing in or having their principal place of business/profession or registered office in municipal wards of Rajkot Municipal Corporation or within the limits of Rajkot district, the jurisdiction would lie with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation), Circle-1, Rajkot. Perhaps being pointed out that such order dated 1.7.1998 was passed after the returns were filed, in the affidavit filed before us, the Department produced the above noted notification. We note this only with a view to highlight that even the departmental authorities were not clear on what basis the jurisdiction in case of the petitioner stood transferred. Can we then expect the petitioner to be aware of such notifications and to file returns before an officer other than his normal Assessing Officer? 13. Even if we proceed on the basis that the petitioner filed the returns before his original Assessing Officer who was a wrong officer, can the Department now take a stand that such returns were non est and therefore, the assessments subjected to reopening on the premise that no returns were filed? 14. In the facts of the present case, we are unable to accept such a stand....