TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y formulating the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the validity of assessment under Section 143(3) based on a notice under Section 143(2) issued by the non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer, solely relying on the address in the PAN?" 3. The aforesaid substantial question of law arises on the following factual backdrop:- 4. The appellant herein/assessee is engaged in the business of trading in electrical goods under the name and style of M/s. Sona Agency situated at Street of Dena Bank, Jawahar Nagar, M.G. Road, Raipur. The appellant/assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 electronically on 17-9-2012 with ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur, declaring total income of Rs. 2,96,390/- and in the PAN database, at that time, his residential address was shown as House No. 490, Nearly Railway Line, Sachdeva Nursing Home Gali, Samta Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The said residential address determines the assessee's territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, on 8-8-2013, on the basis of the aforesaid PAN address, ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, who had jurisdiction over Samta Colony, Raipur, issued notice to the assessee u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipur as per the notification dated 15-11-2014 was lawful and the assessment framed by the AO on 18-3-2015 was valid, and relying upon the provision contained in Section 124(3)(a) of the IT Act, the ITAT has also held that the assessee's challenge was barred as he failed to raise any objection within one month of service of notice under Section 143(2) or within one month from the date of completion of assessment and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. Questioning that order, the present appeal has been preferred. 7. Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/assessee, would submit that the ITAT is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the appeal of the assessee, as the ITAT has decided the appeal on the basis of service of notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur upon the assessee on the residential address as shown in the PAN database and the ITAT has not considered the fact that the assessee has carried out his business and therefore the jurisdictional AO as per Section 2(7A), 124(1)(a), 124(1)(b) & 120(3) of the IT Act would be on the basis of his place of business and not on the basis of residential addres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. As noticed herein-above, the assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 electronically on 17-9-2012 with the ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur, declaring total income of Rs. 2,96,390/- and in the PAN database, at that time, his residential address was shown as House No. 490, Nearly Railway Line, Sachdeva Nursing Home Gali, Samta Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. On the basis of the said PAN database address, the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, who had jurisdiction over Samta Colony, Raipur, issued notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act on 8-8-2013, which was undisputedly served upon the assessee on 21-8-2013. Thereafter, notices under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) of the IT Act were issued to the assessee on 25-8-2014 and 12-12-2014, respectively, during the course of scrutiny, which were served upon the assessee on the basis of the address shown in the PAN database. However, by notification dated 15-11- 2014, the territorial reallocation of wards at Raipur was undertaken and accordingly, the jurisdiction over the area comprising Samta Colony has been transferred to the ITO, Ward-2(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the IT Act issued at the address available in the assessee's PAN database is valid and constitutes proper service, even if the assessee has subsequently changed its address but failed to update the same in the PAN or departmental database, and observed as under:- "6.1 ... It appears that no application was made by the assessee to change the address in the PAN data base and in the PAN database the old address continued. Therefore, in absence of any intimation to the Assessing Officer with respect to change in address, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing the notice at the address available as per the PAN database. Therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot be said t0 have committed any error and in fact the Assessing Officer was justified in sending the notice at the address as per the PAN database. ..." 13. Admittedly, in this case, the assessee has not made any application for change in address to the concerned Assessing Officer and therefore the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is justified in processing the return of income filed by the assessee based on his PAN database residential address. 14. The next submission made on behalf of the respondent herein/ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 adjudication under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made to the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the Board by notification specifies. It necessarily excludes any other Court or authority. Complete machinery for determination of place of assessment or the authority for assessment is provided for under Section 124. 18. The scheme of the IT Act shows that no appeal in regard to the place of assessment is contemplated under the Act. Under Section 124 of the IT Act, a question as to the place of assessment, when it arises is determined by the Commissioner, by the Commissioners if more than one Commissioner is involved and then by the Board. The Supreme Court in Seth Teomal (supra) has quoted with approval a judgment of the Federal Court in the matter of Wallace Bros. & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39 (FC), the relevant extract of which is reproduced herein-below:- "16. The question then ari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court in the matter of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC) has clearly held that the assessee has to question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 124(3)(a) within the stipulated time of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice under Section 142(1) and thereafter, interfered with the order of the High Court holding as under:- "1. The impugned order set asides the assessment for A.Y. 2014-2015 the ground that the jurisdictional officer had not adjudicated upon the returns. The jurisdiction had been changed after the returns were filed. However, the records also reveals that the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Section 124(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under section 142(1)." 20. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7040 has h....