TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion by the Ld. Assessing Officer, without affording any opportunity of being heard as a condition stipulated for framing assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Moreover, the address of the Assessee/Appellant comes under the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer at Kapurthala and neither the I.T.O. II(3). Jalandhar nor the I.T.O. Ward IV(1), Jalandhar had jurisdiction over the assessee. Further, during the whole of the assessment proceedings, the PAN of the appellant was lying with the ITO Moga.' The assessee thereby questions the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officers (ITOs) at Jalandhar over him, i.e., as the Assessing Officers (AOs). The facts 3. The facts in-so-far as are relevant are that the assessee-individual returned his income for the relevant year on 15.08.2009 with Range IV, Jalandhar, i.e., on the basis of his address at Bhagwanpur, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar. The return being selected under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS), notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 15.09.2010 by ITO, Ward II(3), Jalandhar for 20.09.2010. Though the notice, as fairly conceded to by the ld. AR, was served in time, as none represented, another notice u/s. 143(2), al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he jurisdiction to assess and, thus, issue notice u/s. 143(2) to the assessee at the relevant time? There has been, it was further clarified by him, no change in both the assessee's office and residential address as stated in the PAN, since. The Revenue's case before us was that, in terms of section 124(3), the assessee could question the AO's jurisdiction only within thirty days of the service of notice u/s. 143(2), while the same was admittedly only much later, i.e., on 21.01.2011. The assessee's objection is, thus, not maintainable. The transfer of the assessee's case by ITO, Ward II(3), Jalandhar to ITO, Ward IV(1), Jalandhar was due to the transfer of the assessee's PAN - a process internal to the Department, (2) and would, in any case, not operate to invalidate the notices issued on 15.09.2010 and 21.09.2010. The assessee counters this by stating that the very fact that the return was, on his objection, transferred by ITO, Ward II(3), Jalandhar to ITO, Ward IV(1), Jalandhar, validates his objection, even if belated and, further, that therefore the issue of notice u/s 143(2) date 15.09.2010 (and dated 21.09.2010) by him was (were) without jurisdiction. After all, the term '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee in his PAN record, as updated from time to time, on the basis of the communication/s received from the assessee in its respect, i.e., u/s. 139A(5), which is available with the central registry of the Revenue. There is no other basis for the ITO, Ward II(3), Jalandhar for issuing notice u/s. 143(2) on 15.09.2010, which stands admittedly served on the assessee in time (i.e., by 30.09.2010). The assessee however disputes the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward II(3), Jalandhar on the basis of his business address as stated in the PAN record itself. Whether, therefore, ITO Ward II(3), Jalandhar had the jurisdiction over the assessee on the basis of his latest addresses with the Revenue is a matter of record and relevant notification by the Board u/s. 120. (3) Why, the assessee states of ITO, Moga (or ITO, Kapurthala) as having jurisdiction over him (refer Gd. 1), though files his return with ITO, Ward IV(1), Jalandhar, i.e., as per the business address, even as he states of no change in his address with reference to that stated in his PAN record, i.e., is mutually contrary. The matter would need to accordingly travel to the file of the AO for the purpose. If the ITO, Ward II(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or subsection (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or under section 148 for the Making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any direction or order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officer shall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act on an Assessing Officer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area, if any, over which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gular exercise or assumption of jurisdiction; and if the assessee has not objected within the time prescribed by subs( 3), he would be deemed to have waived his objection and the order would be valid and effective (Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. Union of India [1964] 51 ITR 596, 604-605 (Pat)); Ram Chandra Sankhla v. CIT [1995] 127 CTR 179 (Raj)). If an administrative order transferring a case from one AO to another is set aside by the court, that would not necessarily invalidate all action taken, before the court's decision, by the AO to whom the case was transferred (Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh vs. ITO [1969] 74 ITR 563 (Pat)). An objection to the AO's jurisdiction should be raised by the assessee before the AO and before the expiry of the time allowed under sub-s (3), which ensures that the objection is raised before the assessment is completed (Indra & Co. vs. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 466 (Raj); Bhupindra Food & Malt Industries v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 496 (HP); CIT v. All India Children Care and Educational Development Society [2014] 357 ITR 134 (All)). Where the objection is sent by post, it must reach the AO within the prescribed period (Vishwanath Gopal Oil Mill vs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Teomal's case (supra) holds goods under the Act. Although the observations by the Federal Court in Wallace Bros. & Co. Ltd. (supra), that the matter is more of an administrative convenience than of jurisdiction, would not apply under the Act when the statute itself refers to the matter as one of jurisdiction, the question of AO's jurisdiction is still left to be decided, as under the 1922 Act, by the Director General or Commissioner or Board and not by the appellant authorities or by the Courts on reference. That is, the matter is left to be decided by the administrative side, even as clarified, once again, by the Hon'ble Court in CIT v. British India Corporation Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 64 (All) referring to decisions by the Apex Court, including Teomal (supra) and Wallace Bros. & Co. Ltd. (supra), as well as its earlier decision in Hindustan Transport Co. v. IAC [1991] 189 ITR 326 (All). The said view stands reiterated recently in CIT v. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2015] 92 CCH 33 (Del). The issue arising is the validity of the notice u/s. 143(2) dated 15.09.2010, admittedly served on the assessee by 30.09.2010 i.e., the last date by which it ought to have bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law in the matter during hearing. Conclusion 5. The question of validity of the notice u/s. 143(2) dated 21.09.2010 on the ground of its issue by an Assessing Officer not having jurisdiction to assess him in terms of the territorial area assigned to him u/s. 120, was, on examination, found to contain two aspects, i.e., one factual and the other legal. On facts, in view of the contrary claims, i.e., by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) on one side, and the assessee on the other, both basing their case on the ITO, Ward II(3), Jalandhar - who issued the relevant notices u/s. 143(2) (dated 15.09.2010 and 21.09.2010), to be having or, as the case may be, not having jurisdiction on the basis of the assessee's office address, would have to be necessarily resolved with reference to the relevant notification u/s. 120, with we further observing that the burden to communicate its' latest address to the Revenue, in view of section 139A(5), is on the assessee, so that the Revenue can proceed on the basis of the assessee's latest address available with it. In fact, strictly speaking, as indeed ought to be the case, the assessee having not objected to the first notice u/s. 143(2), i.e., dated 15.09....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A). There is no challenge, nor possibly could be, to the inherent competence of the ITO, Ward II(3) Jalandhar to issue a notice u/s. 143(2), which competence is in fact the same as that of any other ITO at Jalandhar or Kapurthala. Once, therefore, there is a valid assumption of jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s. 143(3), by service of a valid notice u/s. 143(2) in time, the proceedings are to be taken to their logical conclusion (refer: Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC)). The assessment by the ITO, Ward IV-(1), Jalandhar, with whom the assessee filed his return, and who received the assessee's return from ITO, Ward II(3) Jalandhar on 21.07.2011, cannot therefore be faulted with. In fact, no further objection was raised by the assessee, with he rather participating in the assessment proceedings. How, then, could he challenge the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward IV(1) Jalandhar - with whom he has in fact filed his return for the year, as his AO, in the appellate proceedings. The issue of notices u/ss. 142(1) and 143(2) by ITO, Ward IV(1) Jalandhar on 21.07.2011 (PB pgs. 10, 11) is again in consonance with the law which contemplates issue of such notices on change of in....