AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....veable property. Accordingly, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 04.09.2018, which was duly served on the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee submitted the details online. It may be mentioned that the assessee, inter alia, raised an issue about the territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, namely the Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai (in short 'ITO') on the ground that the assessee was a resident and was carrying on business/profession at Bengaluru, Karnataka. Thus, placing reliance on the provisions of Section 120 r.w.s 124 of the Act, it was claimed that the AO in this case would lack territorial jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the AO notwithstanding the objection as to jurisdiction, completed the e-assessment as per assessment order dated 21.12.2019. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), again raising the ground as to want of territorial jurisdiction with the AO. The CIT (A) by the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 has partly allowed the appeal directing the AO to allow exemption under Section 54 of the Act for one residential house and recalculate the taxable income accordingly. 4. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune [2017] 85 taxmann.com 270 (Pune - Trib.) which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 457 ITR 775 (Bombay). 8. The learned CIT-DR has submitted that PAN of the assessee was transferred/migrated to Bangalore on 26.02.2021 and current jurisdiction over the assessee lies with ITO Ward (2)(2)(5) at Bangalore. Insofar as the objection raised by assessee on territorial jurisdiction of the AO is concerned, it is submitted that the AO vide letter dated 18.11.2019 had intimated appellant that proposal for migration of her PAN has been forwarded to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ('Pr. CIT' for short) and the PAN could be migrated only after an order is passed by the Pr. CIT, which has been done on 26.02.2021. The learned CIT-DR has also pointed that in the return of income filed by the assessee, the designation of the AO was shown as Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai and thus, the assessee could not have raised objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the AO. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, in reply, has submitted that strictly t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igrated on 26.02.2021. The record also discloses that notices were served to the appellant on her Bangalore address. Thus, for all practical purposes, it is not in dispute that at the time when the impugned action was taken and the assessment order was passed, the appellant was residing and was carrying on her profession at Bangalore. The question is whether the AO at Mumbai could have assumed jurisdiction in the matter ? 12. The jurisdiction of various income tax authorities has to be reckoned on the basis of statutory provisions, which confer such jurisdiction; both territorial, pecuniary or otherwise. Sub-section (1) of Section 120 of the Act provides that income tax authorities shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred or assigned to them under the Act, in accordance with such directions as the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('Board' for short) may issue from time to time. Section 124 of the Act thereafter becomes relevant for the purpose which pertains to the jurisdiction of AO and it reads thus (to the extent relevant) :- "124. (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(1), Pune [2017] 85 taxmann.com 270 (Pune - Trib.) (supra) which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 457 ITR 775 (Bombay) (supra). 16. In the case of Abdul Azeez Haroon (supra), the assessee was a nonresident Indian. After the assessment was completed in respect of the relevant year, Commissioner (International Taxation) issued a reopening notice against the assessee at his address at Madurai (Tamil Nadu). The assessee contended that he was residing at Madurai prior to period relating to assessment year 2011- 12 and admittedly no return of income was filed by him during his stay at Madurai as he had no taxable income during that period. From assessment year 2010-11 assessee had shifted to Shimoga (Karnataka) where he was carrying on business and thus, the return of income from assessment year 2012-13 onwards were filed at Shimoga. The Hon'ble Madras High Court after considering notification dated 15.11.2014 in the context of facts of the case found that the appropriate officer to assess the petitioner ....