TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the total income of the appellant at Rs. 57,15,05,400/- u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as against the returned income of Rs. 18,87,66,500/- and thereby making erroneous additions of Rs. 38,27,38,898/-. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law in framing a high-pitched assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by making erroneous, arbitrary and ad-hoc additions based on mere conjectures, suspicions and surmises amounting to Rs. 38,27,38,898/- without considering the submissions made by the appellant. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the additions amounting to Rs.3,88,42,034/- (on three counts) and not deleting the ad-hoc and arbitrary additions in entirety amounting to Rs. 38,27,38,898/- vide order u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.06.2024 which additions have been made erroneously & arbitrarily by the Ld. AO against the principles of natural justice while framing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in restricting the additions/disallowances to the extent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under:- "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the assessing officer was bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice and void-ab-initio." It is prayed before the Hon'ble Bench that Ground No.1 may be allowed to be revised as under: - Revised Ground No. 1:- "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the assessing officer was bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction as passed by non-jurisdictional AO that too without following the mandatory procedure in law of issuance of valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, barred by limitation and thus, void-ab-initio." 4) That the aforementioned revision to add "out of jurisdiction as passed by non-jurisdictional AO that too without following the mandatory procedure in law" relates to the facts already on record and has been inadvertently left by the appellant at the time of filing of appeal. 5) That it is respectfully submitted that the appellant company has raised the similar ground before the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form-35 [Ground No. 2 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of section 68 and 69C? 3. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the addition of Rs. 10,55,20,195/- made under the head business income on account of sale of assets to be made u/s 50 of the Act ignoring the facts brought out by the AO that the sale bills do not have any mention that old and used dies have been sold? 4. Whether the decision of Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the addition on account of sale of assets to be made u/s 50 of the Act ignoring the facts as to how the impugned Block of Assets can be sold at three times than its Written Down Value (WDV)?" 7. The cross objections raised by the assessee in CO no. 122/DEL/2024 against the appeal preferred by the revenue are as under: - 1. "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the assessing officer was bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice and void-ab-initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in law in determining the total income of the appellant at Rs. 57,15,05,400/- as against the returned income of Rs. 18,87,66,500/- vide order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in law in determining the total income of the appellant at Rs. 57,15,05,400/- u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as against the returned income of Rs. 18,87,66,500/- and thereby making erroneous additions of Rs. 38,27,38,898/-. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law in framing a high-pitched assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by making erroneous, arbitrary and ad-hoc additions based on mere conjectures, suspicions and surmises amounting to Rs. 38,27,38,898/- without considering the submissions made by the appellant. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the additions amounting to Rs. 3,88,42,034/- (on three counts) and not deleting the ad-hoc and arbitrary additions in entirety amounting to Rs. 38,27,38,898/- vide order u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.06.2024 which additions have been made erroneously & arbitrarily by the Ld. AO against the principles of natural justice while framing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. That on the facts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rong Addition on Sale of Fixed Assets 10,55,20,195 vi. Wrong Disallowance of Travelling Expenses 15,71,356 vii. Wrong Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D 29,36,365 Total Additions Made 38,27,38,898 Add: Returned Income 18,87,66,500 Assessed Income 57,15,05,398 3) Having aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order dated 26.03.2014, an appeal was filed on 15.04.2014 before the first appellate authority and after a long period of 10 years, only the partial relief has been allowed to the assessee company as under: - First Appeal Result Addition Confirmed Addition Deleted Total Addition Addition on account of disallowance of purchases restricted to Gross Profit @12.59% 25,78,270 1,79,00,444 2,04,78,714 64,23,967 4,46,00,390 5,10,24,357 2,48,88,536 17,27,96,424 19,76,84,960 4,43,540 30,79,411 35,22,951 Addition deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as the Sale Consideration already reduced from the WDV of Assets keeping in view the provisions of Sec. 50 of the I. Tax Act. - 10,55,20,195 10,55,20,195 Addition Confirmed 15,71,356 - 15,71,356 Addition Confirmed 29,36,365 - 29,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entirely transferred to the assessee company and since then the assessee company has been carrying out its business operation from the following premises: 1. Plot no. 31-B, Industrial Area NIT, Faridabad - 121001, Haryana. 2. Plot no. 90, sector 24, Faridabad, 121005, Haryana 3. Plot no. 26F, Industrial area, NIT Faridabad, Haryana 4. Plot 53/2 NIT Faridabad, Haryana 5. Plot no. 25/8, industrial Area Faridabad, 121001 However, the registered address of the company was at C-8, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 110065 only as a correspondence/communication address. iv) As no business was carried out in FY 2007-08 by the appellant company, Nil return of income was filed for AY 2008-09, copy of ITR Ack. for AY 08-09 is enclosed at Page no. 1 of Indexed Compilation Of Documents Duly Forming Part Of Assessment And Appeal Record (Indexed Compilation) already filed on record. v) The first year of business operation of the assessee company was FY 2008-09 relevant to AY 2009-10. The said AY 2009-10 was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS vide notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 19.08.2010 issued by ITO Ward-21(1), D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act dated 31.03.2014 for AY 10-11 is enclosed at Pages 10 to 12 of Indexed Compilation. viii) From the above stated facts, it can be seen that two distinct authorities have framed assessment for two different assessment years at the same time in case of the assessee company - Two simultaneous assessments cannot be framed by different authorities that too located at different stations, one at Delhi and another at Faridabad which is totally against the principles of jurisprudence of tax administration. ix) In the present case, the jurisdiction assumed by the Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi is invalid as the jurisdiction of the assessee company since AY 2009-10 vests with the Central Circle, Faridabad only due to the fact that the jurisdiction was transferred from Delhi to Faridabad vide letter dated 20.10.2010 by the ITO Ward-21(1), Delhi himself as indicated at Para (vi) above as well as the case of the assessee company was centralized with Central Circle, Faridabad on account of search action conducted by the Central Excise Department, Faridabad on 22.12.2010 on some third party due to which, case of the assessee company was reopened for FY 2006-07 to FY 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Faridabad] 27-28 2014-15 143(3) 21.12.2016 DCIT, CC-1, Faridabad [Notice u/s 143(2) issued on 31.08.2015 by DCIT, Circle26(1) & (2), Delhi and thereafter case was transferred to CC-1, Faridabad] 29-31 2015- 16 143(3) 14.03.2017 DCIT, CC-1, Faridabad [Notice u/s 143(2) issued on 17.03.2016 by DCIT, Circle26(1), Delhi and thereafter case was transferred to CC-1, Faridabad] 32-34 From the afore-stated facts, it can be easily construed that the valid jurisdiction of assessee company vests with the Central Circle-1, Faridabad since inception, i.e., AY 2009-10 and therefore, Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi has erred in law in assuming jurisdiction over the assessee company. In the instant case of the assessee company, the assessment from AY 2009-10 to AY 2015- 16 (except AY 2011-12) have been framed by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, i.e., the assessment years falling before as well as after AY 2011-12, the year under appeal have all been framed by Central Circle-1, Faridabad. xii) It can also be observed from the table at para (xi) above that during AY 2009-10, AY 2012-13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 6033/DEL/2016 after deep examination of the issue of jurisdiction and taking into account numerous judgements of the Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court, observed as under vide order dated 17.03.2021: - "16. The entire case of the revenue hinges upon the interpretation that allotment of PAN is the criteria and foundation of deciding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. However, nowhere in the statute it has been provided that PAN address will decide the territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Section 139A merely provides who are the persons required to obtain PAN having regard to the nature of transaction of business and other conditions laid down that, Assessing Officer may allot a PAN and other procedure and mechanism of allotment of the PAN. The territorial jurisdiction is decided by the CBDT in terms of Section 120 only. Here, in this case, as discussed above, none of the parameters laid down for the territorial jurisdiction are applicable to the assessee. Even the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A) has not I.T.A. No.6033/DEL/2016 & CO No.11/DEL/2017 23 made out any case that assessee's case falls i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be an Assessing Officer for the assessee company as defined u/s 2(7A) of the Act. Accordingly, as held by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bharat kumar Modi [2000] 246 ITR 693/113 Taxman 386 wherein the well settled principle of law was discussed setting out the difference between lack of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of authority/ jurisdiction and it was held that "Proceedings are a nullity when the authority taking it, has a no power to have seisin over the case", therefore, in the instant case, as the Ld. AO, i.e., Ld. Addl CIT, Range-17, New Delhi lacks the jurisdiction by virtue of provisions of Sec. 124 of the Act, the order as well as the proceedings carried out by him for AY 2011-12 are a nullity and accordingly, deserves to be quashed on this count itself. xvi) In support of the above, it is vehemently submitted that as per the governing section which determines the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, i.e., Sec. 124 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi cannot assume jurisdiction of the assessee company as the principal place of business of the assessee company is situated only in Faridabad, Haryana and no- wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....FARIDABAD-121007 2 DENA BANK ( A/C NO. 064911023857) BANK OF BARODA,47, NEELAM BATA ROAD, NIT FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121001 3 HDFC 0932320001094 (Vee Gee Indl. Enter Old A/c) HDFC BANK LIMITED,5-R/2, BADSHAH KHAN CHOWK, NIT FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121001 4 HDFC BANK0932790000339(VeeGee Ind Ent. Old A/c) HDFC BANK LIMITED,5-R/2, BADSHAH KHAN CHOWK, NIT FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121001 5 HDFC BANK LTD. (00938640000023) (C/A for Export) HDFC BANK LIMITED,5-R/2, BADSHAH KHAN CHOWK, NIT FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121001 6 HDFC BANK CC LIMIT A/C NO 00932790000380 FBD. HDFC BANK LIMITED,5-R/2, BADSHAH KHAN CHOWK, NIT FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121001 7 HDFC BANK EEFC A/C (AUD) 00938910000015 HDFC BANK LIMITED,5-R/2, BADSHAH KHAN CHOWK, NIT FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121001 8 HDFC BANK -FDOD A/C NO 00938180000071 (MAIN A/C) HDFC BANK LIMITED, SCF-69, 69A, SECTOR-7, HUDA MARKET FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121006 9 HDFC BANK EEFC A/C (USD) 00932430000255 HDFC BANK LIMITED,5-R/2, BADSHAH KHAN CHOWK, NIT FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121001 10 ING VYSYA BANK LTD.(CA-A/C.NO.584011022099) KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK,5 E 1, NIT GROUND FLOOR RAILWAY ROAD, FARIDABAD, 121001 xx....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id notices and the High Court has rightly held that the AO at New Delhi was having the jurisdiction to issue notice under the Income-tax Act, 1961." b. High Court of Calcutta in the case of India Glycols Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 145 TAXMAN 549 (CAL.) vide order dated 07.10.2004 held as under: "24. While deciding the merits of the case I find pursuant to the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court the then Commissioner of Income tax, Lucknow, on April 25, 1994, has found that because the registered office of the company is situated within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Moradabad, the petitioner is deemed to have the principal place of business of the company within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid officer. This finding in my view is not legally tenable by reason of the fact that the petitioner in its objection specifically stated that though petitioner No. 1 does have its registered office at Moradabad and also has various branch offices at various places, its principal place of business and/or corporate office is located at Calcutta. This fact has not been dealt with and/or adverted to by the Commissioner. Perhaps, he h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h undisputedly is in Solan. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has given a finding of fact that the partnership deed was got registered with Sub Registrar, Solan. In the partnership deed, the address of the firm as well as that of the partners, namely Shri Vivek Bhalla, Smt. Anjali Bhalla, Shri Har Dev Raj Bhalla and Mrs. Neelam Bhallla has been given as village Ranguwal, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. No other place of business of the firm or the partners is mentioned in the partnership deed. A perusal of the partnership deed filed before us confirms the above fact, wherein at Clause 2 it is stated that the unit shall be set up at Nalagarh or any other place which the parties may from time to time determine and the partners have put their signatures giving address at village Ranguwal, Tehsil Nalagarh, Solan. Even PAN of the assessee lies with ITO, Baddi .Further even the assessee has not disputed the above facts. Thus, by virtue of sub section (1) to section 124 of the Act, the territorial jurisdiction undisputedly lay with the ITO, Solan and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has rightly held so. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has not demonstrated before us as to how the jurisdiction, in the backdrop ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or vocation at any place, he shall be assessed by the Income-tax Officer of that area in which that place is situate or where the business, profession, or vocation is carried on at more than one place by the Income-tax Officer of the area in which the principal place of business, profession or vocation is situate. In all other cases, according to sub section (2), an assessee shall be assessed by the Income-tax Officer of the area in which he resides. If any question arises as to the place of assessment such question shall be decided, after giving the assessee an opportunity to represent his views by the Commissioner or Commissioners concerned or in case of disagreement between them by the Board of Revenue: [subsection (3)]. It is quite clear from the aforesaid provisions of section 64 that the Legislature considered the question of the place of assessment to be of some importance to the assessee. This order is calculated to inflict considerable inconvenience and harassment on the petitioner. Its books of account will have to be produced before the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi-a place hundreds of miles from Calcutta, which is its place of business. Its partne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act" From a bare reading of the aforesaid definition, it can be seen that an Additional Commissioner can exercise & perform functions of an "Assessing Officer" only when a specific direction u/s 120(4)(b) of the Act has been issued. 2) In the instant case of the assessee company, no such direction has been issued u/s 120(4)(b) of the Act which fact is evident from the assessment order itself where there is not even a single whisper of the fact that how the assessment was taken over by the Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi from the Ld. DCIT, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. The first notice which was received by the appellant company was notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 11.04.2013 which was issued by the DCIT, Circle-17(1), New Delhi and the first notice issued by the Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi was notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 08.10.2013, the complete chain of notices so issued is as under: - Date Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act of Notice u/s 142(1) issued by Copy enclosed vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment order that case was assigned to Addl. CIT, Range-23, New Delhi, vide Order of the CIT, Delhi-VIII, New Delhi, dated 09.12.2013, therefore, it is sufficient that Addl. CIT, Range-23, New Delhi, was having jurisdiction over the case of assessee. However, no Order or Notification in support of the above contention have been produced on record to satisfy the requirements of the Law. Mere mentioning of such order, dated 09.12.2013, may not serve the purposes. The ld. D.R. also relied upon Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mega Corpn. Ltd., (supra), in which it is mentioned in para-2 that on 01.08.2007, a Notification was issued under section 120(2) conferring power upon Addl. CIT. Therefore, this Judgment would not support the case of the Revenue. It may be noted further that provisions of Section 124(3) of the I.T. Act would not be applicable in the case of the assessee because Addl. CIT, Range-23, New Delhi did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. Therefore, there is no question of raising any objection before him. It may, however, noted that Section 124 of the I.T. Act, would come into play when there was a direction or order issued u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ently stand dismissed." Further, reliance is placed on M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. Vs. Additional commissioner of income tax range-1(3) (MUM. TRIB.) ITA NO. 3972/MUM/2007 order dated 16.08.2019 and ITO (IT) TDS-2 VS. Tata Steel Ltd. [2024] 163 TAXMANN.COM 345 (MUMBAI - TRIB.) order dated 07.06.2024. In view of the afore-stated facts and settled law, the order passed by the Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi is undisputedly without jurisdiction and accordingly, deserves to be quashed. II. (a) The impugned order dated 26.03.2014 has been passed u/s 143(3) of the Act without following the mandatory procedure of law of issuance of a valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act In addition to the fact that the impugned assessment order dated 26.03.2014 has been framed by a Non-Jurisdictional AO (which has already been demonstrated in view of the detailed submission made above), the said assessment order has been passed without issuing a valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is a mandatory & preliminary requirement envisaged under the income tax law for selecting a case for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The said fact that no notice u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act upon the assessee to require any information or document from the assessee to explain the information furnished in its return of income when the Ld. AO has certain doubts about the information so furnished in the return of income. Therefore, when the Ld. AO has issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act then it is totally incongruous on the part of the Ld. AO to pass an order u/s 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income of the assessee company particularly when the statute itself allows immunity in this regard (as already aforesaid). Reliance placed on CIT vs. Gujarat Electricity Board [2003] 129 Taxman 65 (SC) order dated 12.11.2002. 6) Furthermore, as a matter of departmental practice, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act are simultaneously issued after issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act but in the instant case, the first notice u/s 142(1) of the Act have only been issued on 11.04.2013, i.e., after the processing of the return u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.03.2013 and no notice has been issued from 09.08.2012 [i.e., impugned date of notice u/s 143(2)] till 11.04.2013. 7) From the afore-stated facts, it appears from the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said settled law, the assessing officer who concludes the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has to mandatorily issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for initiation of the assessment proceedings. The Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act only when an order u/s 127 of the Act has been passed transferring the jurisdiction from Ld. DCIT, Circle-17(1), New Delhi to Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi by virtue of Sub- Section (4) of Sec. 127 of the Act. No such order u/s 127 of the Act has been passed which is a matter of record and also evident from the assessment order itself as there is no mention of transfer of jurisdiction vide order u/s 127 of the Act. Reliance is being placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in case of PCIT-19 v. Vimal Gupta in ITA no. 515/2016whereby the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 16.10.2017 held that without an order u/s 127 of the Act the Addl. Commissioner cannot assume jurisdiction/ takeover jurisdiction from ITO and thus, the order passed by him is without jurisdiction and bad in law. Further, reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Coordinate Ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of Sec. 153(1) read with First Proviso to Sec. 153(1) of the Act, the relevant contents of the said provisions as they stood immediately before the amendment made vide Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 are reproduced herein below(Copy of relevant Sec. 153 is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure-C): - "153. ^99[(1) No order of assessment ^1 shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of- (a ) two years from the end of the assessmentyear in which the income was first assessable ; or (b ) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 139, whichever is later:] ^2 [Provided that in case the assessment year in which the income was first assessable is the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2004 or any subsequent assessment year, the provisions of clause (a) shall have effect as if for the words "two years", the words "twenty-one months" had been substituted:]" In view of the afore-stated f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt for AY 2011-12. The said chart is reproduced hereunder: - AY Details of Assessment Order Framed u/s Date Passed by 2009- 10 143(3) 08.11.2011 ACIT, CC-1, Faridabad [Notice u/s 143(2) issued on 19.08.2010 by ITO-21(1), Delhi enclosed at Page 6 and thereafter case was transferred to CC-1, Faridabad] 2010- 11 147 r.w.s. 143(3) 31.03.2014 DCIT, CC-1, Faridabad [Notice u/s 148 issued on 25.03.2013 by DCIT, CC-1, Faridabad enclosed at Page 19] 2011- 12 143(3) 26.03.2014 Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi 2012- 13 143(3) 20.02.2015 DCIT, CC-1, Faridabad [Notice u/s 142(1) issued on 29.11.2013 by DCIT, Circle-17(1), Delhi enclosed at Page 21 and thereafter case was transferred to CC-1, Faridabad on request made vide letter dated 12.09.14 enclosed at Page 22] 2013- 14 143(3) 17.03.2016 DCIT, CC-1, Faridabad [Notice u/s 143(2) issued on 12.09.2014 by DCIT, Circle-17(1), Delhi enclosed at Page 26 and thereafter case was transferred to CC-1, Faridabad] &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issions that all the Bank Accounts of the assessee company are also maintained in Faridabad as well as the directors/promoters having control over the management of the assessee company are also based in Faridabad. The said facts also emanate from the records of the authorities below. On the strength of these facts, the Ld. AR submitted that as per the governing section of jurisdiction, i.e., Sec. 124 of the Act which states that the in case of a person carrying on a business or profession, the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the area where the principal place of business is located will be considered as the Assessing Officer meaning thereby that in any case, the jurisdiction of the assessee company cannot lie in Delhi. 17. The Ld. AR argued that the aforesaid fact was available on record before the Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi that the principal place of business of the assessee is at Faridabad only as the said fact was duly indicated in the Tax Audit Report in Form-3CD for AY 2011-12. The Ld. AR further argued that the registered address of the assessee company at C-8, East of Kailash, New Delhi served only as a correspondence address and no business has ever ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e registered office of the company is situated within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Moradabad, the petitioner is deemed to have the principal place of business of the company within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid officer. This finding in my view is not legally tenable by reason of the fact that the petitioner in its objection specifically stated that though petitioner No. 1 does have its registered office at Moradabad and also has various branch offices at various places, its principal place of business and/or corporate office is located at Calcutta. This fact has not been dealt with and/or adverted to by the Commissioner. Perhaps, he has equated registered office with the principal place of business. Principal place of business of the company is termed and/or treated as the place wherefrom all control over the business activities is exercised. In other words, the centre of power of the corporate body is located. This principal place of business may or may not be a registered place of business. In a very old decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dina Nath Hemraj of Cawnpore v. CIT [1927] 2 ITC 304, the aforesaid position ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eed. A perusal of the partnership deed filed before us confirms the above fact, wherein at Clause 2 it is stated that the unit shall be set up at Nalagarh or any other place which the parties may from time to time determine and the partners have put their signatures giving address at village Ranguwal, Tehsil Nalagarh, Solan. Even PAN of the assessee lies with ITO, Baddi .Further even the assessee has not disputed the above facts. Thus, by virtue of sub section (1) to section 124 of the Act, the territorial jurisdiction undisputedly lay with the ITO, Solan and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has rightly held so. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has not demonstrated before us as to how the jurisdiction, in the backdrop of the above facts, did not lie with the ITO, Solan, despite repeated opportunities given. The entire thrust of the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the assessee was that it was consistently filing returns at Delhi and was being assessed there. This argument has no legs to stand on. The assessee has not stated as to why it was filing its returns at Delhi. It is not the assessee's case, nor has it been demonstrated before us that it had its head office or any place of busines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 26.03.2014 for AY 2011-12 that the assessment has been framed without assuming a valid jurisdiction. 22. We have observed that the Ld. AR of the assessee company vide his submissions have demonstrated that the jurisdiction of the assessee company lies with DCIT, CC-1, Faridabad on the backdrop of the assessment history of the assessee company. We also find the submission of the Ld. AR logical that when the case of the assessee company for the years before as well as after the impugned AY 2011-12 have all been framed by the Ld. DCIT, CC-1, Faridabad then how the jurisdiction for AY 2011-12 was assumed by the Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi particularly when no order u/s 127 of the Act has been brought on record by the Revenue. 23. We have seen from the records placed before us that during the assessment proceedings for AY 2009-10, the proceedings were initiated by ITO Ward-21(1), Delhi vide notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 19.08.2010 then a request was made by the assessee vide letter dated 06.09.2010 to transfer the case to the valid jurisdictional assessing officer, i.e., DCIT, CC-1, Faridabad. On receipt of such request, the ITO Ward-21(1), Delhi transferred the case ....