TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but the Assessing Officer did not comply the provision of section 124(3) of the Act and did not refer the dispute over jurisdiction to C.I.T. 1.2 That the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing all legal contentions of the appellant raised before him arbitrarily and erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 23,06,002/- and validity of the illegal assessment order. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 23,06,002/- interallia on account of the alleged unexplained travelling expenses of Rs. 1,37,875/- and Credit Card Payment of Rs. 21,68,127/- arbitrarily on merit also and wrongly stated in the appellate Order that the appellant did not adduce any evidence. 3. That the appellant craves to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal." (B) The assessee filed return of income showing income of Rs. 1,17,81,850/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment; and the assessment order was passed on 31.03.2015 wherein total income was assessed at Rs. 1,40,87,852/-(rounded off to Rs. 1,40,87,850/-). The additions made by the Assessing Officer ("AO", for short) included a sum of Rs. 21,68,127/- on account of Credit Card Payment and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....individual and Managing director of NTF( India) Private Limited, 4812/24, Ansari Road Daryaganj New Delhi, filed Income Tax Return declaring total income of Rs. 1,17,81,850/- which has been assessed at Rs. 1,40,87,852/- after making addition or Rs. 23,06,002/-inter alia on account of the alleged unexplained travelling expenses of Rs. 1,37,875/- and Credit Card payment of Rs. 21,68,127/- under section 144 of the Act, by the Assessing Officer, Ward 13(1), who was not having jurisdiction over the assessee. • The appellant, Managing Director, of NTF(India) Private Limited Company was assessed by the same Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the said Company as per notification issued by CBDT in accordance with section 120 of the Act. The appellant has been assessed in New Delhi for the last several years and as such, the appellant filed objection before the Assessing Officer immediately on receipt of Statutory Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, as per section 124(3) of the Act, stating that the appellant is assessed with Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1), New Delhi, vide Letter dated 07.07.2014 objecting the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer Gurgaon. Pape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following case laws: 1. PCIT vs Mega Corporation Ltd ITA No. 128/2016 2. Abhishek Jain Vs ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 355(Delhi), [2013] 94 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi) 3. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-XVI v. S.S. Ahluwalia [2014] 46 taxmann.com 169 (Delhi) 4. Deluxe Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Solan (H.P.) [2017] 88 taxmann.com 771 (Chandigarh-Trib.) (E) At the time of hearing before us, the Learned Authorized Representative ("Ld. AR", for short) for the assessee submitted that the regular jurisdiction of the assessee was with ACIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi, and the Assessment Order passed by the DCIT, Circle-3, Gurgaon was without jurisdiction. He further drew our attention to the synopsis [referred to in foregoing paragraph (C.2) of this order] wherein the details have been furnished, year wise, showing date of filing of return/ date of assessment in the jurisdiction of ACIT, Circle 13(1), New Delhi, for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010- 11, 2013-14,2014-15, 2016-17,2017-16. He also drew our attention to letter dated 7th July, 2014 filed by the assessee before DCIT, Circle -3, Gurgaon objecting to jurisdiction assumed by him a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T, Circle-3, Gurgaon was not being pressed. However, he submitted that the dispute regarding merits of the additions be set aside to the AO for fresh order, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to make submissions on merits of the additions. He supported his submissions on the ground that the merits of the additions not being considered and adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) either before DCIT, Circle-3, Gurgaon or before Ld. CIT(A). (F) We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials available on record. We have considered the judicial proceedings brought to our notice. It is not in dispute that the assessee's return for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14,2014-15, 2016-17,2017-16 were filed by the assessee in the jurisdiction of ACIT, Circle 13(1), New Delhi. These Assessment Years include periods before Assessment Year 2012-13 (to which present appeal pertains) as well as, after Assessment Year 2012-13. It is also not in dispute that the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2009-10, 2014-15 and 2016-17 (which pertains to both before and after Assessment Year 2012-13) under Section 143(3) of I.T. Act after due scrutiny were passed by ACIT, Ci....