TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the grounds challenging the validity of jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income Tax in passing the revision order and the addition by the AO. 2.2. Before we go into the merits of the case, we find it appropriate to first clarify on the jurisdictional aspects on which the assessee has raised the ground Nos.2 &3 as follows:- 2. The Ld. CIT-9 erred in passing revisionary order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act against the appellant who does not fall under his jurisdiction. The said order is illegal, non-est in law and lacks jurisdiction. 3. The Ld. CIT-9 ought to have seen that the order of assessment is not erroneous and that the Ld. CIT can assume jurisdiction u/s.263 only if the twin condition of the assessment order being erroneous and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Ltd., acquires right in the property on execution of Registered Special Power of attorney dated 03.03.2011, but for the property at Jaipur, the special power of attorney is not registered and unregistered agreement of sale was entered on 04.04.2011, falls in the Financial Year 2011-12. 3.2 The Ld. CIT considering the specific clause in the Special Power of Attorney dated 03.03.2011, found that there is a transfer of capital asset being a land in term of provisions of the section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act read with section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and due to agreements, the properties were transferred in the relevant previous year 2010-11 and capital gains arose in the assessment year 2011-12 whereas the assessee has offered th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as.e The objection of the assessee is not all sustainable for the following reasons: The show cause notice u/s.263 was issued on 10.03.2015. The assessment order u/s.143(3) for assessment year 2012-13 was passed by the aCIT,Non-Corporate Circle-6,Chennai thereafter on 23.3.15. But, the assessee has not raised any objection before the AO and has duly complied with various notices issued by the ACIT, Non-Corporate circle-6. He has also notraised any objection when fresh notice u/s.143(2) was issued by the AO after the issue of Notification and change of jurisdiction by the CBDT wef 15.11.2014 and consequential orders passed by the Pr.CCIT, Pr.CIT and the Additional.CIT. The PAN of the assessee also comes under jurisdiction of ACIT,Non Corpor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n his jurisdiction. Therefore,, the order is non-est in the eyes of law and lacks jurisdiction. The assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 26.03.2014 was passed by the ITO, Business Ward VIII(1),Chennai falls in the jurisdiction of CIT-7 as per the jurisdictional list effective from 15.11.2014 and the assessee has offered capital gains in the assessment year 2012-13 based on the sale agreements which is in order and valid in the eyes of law. The ld. Counsel for the assessee substantiate his arguments on the jurisdictional aspects and referred to paper book explaining the circumstances and power of attorney and agreement of sale executed and drew attention to page-81 of the paper book where the jurisdiction of AO was clearly mentioned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15 issued on 15.11.2014 explaining the jurisdiction of the assessee falling under Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai-7 and relied on the order of CIT. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decision cited. We have limited our adjudication on the jurisdictional aspects. The ld.A.R argued that the order passed by the CIT-9 lacks jurisdiction as the assessment for assessment year 2011-12 was passed by the ITO,Ward No.VIII(1),Chennai, which falls in the jurisdiction of CIT-7 and not in CIT-9. The ld.A.R drew attention to the jurisdictional chart and explained that the change in jurisdiction has occurred only from 15.11.2014, which is after passing of assessment order by the AO on 24.03.2014. The l....