TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee filed returns of income for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 by mentioning the address of Kolkata, which were selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. 4. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued for assessment year 2014-15 originally by the ITO, Ward-6(2), Patna and thereafter the file was transferred from ITO Ward-6(2), Patna to ITO Ward-6(5) Patna, as the Assessee derives income from property development or building. Insofar as assessment year 2015-16, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued by the ITO Ward-6(5) Patna. On receipt of the notices u/s 143(2) of the Act, Assessee requested the ITO Patna to transfer the records to the Kolkata Assessing Officer having terrirtorial jurisdiction over it. 5. However, the request of the Assessee to transfer the records to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the Assessee was not entertained by the department and Assessment Orders came to be passed for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 29.12.2016 and for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 30.12.2017 by ITO Ward-6(5), Patna, by making certain additions. 6. As against the Assessment Orders for the Assessment Year 2014-15 & 2015-16 (supra), Assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessment Year 2011-12 to till date by mentioning the address at Kolkata. Therefore, the assessment orders framed by ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna had no territorial jurisdiction over the Assessee. 9. Further submitted that Assessee made several attempts to correct the territorial jurisdiction and to transfer the file to the ITO at Kolkata having jurisdiction over the Assessee by way of filing petitions before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and also gave multiple representations to the concerned authorities of the Department. However, the said issue was not resolved. On the other hand the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act were issued by the ITO, Ward-6(2), Patna and ITO, Ward-6(5) at Patna to the Assessee for the years under consideration. The Learned Counsel further submitted that as per the CBDT Notification dated 22.10.2014, the territorial jurisdiction of the Assessee is not under ITO, Patna, on the contrary the jurisdiction on the Assessee lies with ITO, Kolkata. The Learned Counsel further relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Delhi Vs UV Realters Private Limited in ITA No.228/2022 dated 27.02/7.2022 and also relied on the following Orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or filing the return of income, to contact ITO, Ward-6(2), Patna'. 12. Pursuant to the issuance of the said PAN, Assessee filed Returns of Income for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, wherein the Assessee mentioned the address of Kolkata, West Bengal. The Returns for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 were selected for 'Limited Scrutiny'. Further, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 was issued by the then ITO, Ward-6(2) Patna, thereafter, the file was transferred to ITO, Ward-6(5) Patna, as the Assessee derived income from property development. For the assessment year 2015-16, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward-6(5) Patna. The assessment orders were also passed by the ITO, Ward-6(5) Patna. Those assessment orders have been affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order impugned. 13. The moot question here is to whether the ITO, Ward-6(5) Patna, had territorial jurisdiction over the Assessee to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and also to frame the assessments for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16?. 14. The provisions of Section 120 of the Act deals with the Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities, which re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r or a Joint Director, and, where any order is made under this clause, references in any other provision of this Act, or in any rule made there under to the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be references to such Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director by whom the powers and functions are to be exercised or performed under such order, and any provision of this Act requiring approval or sanction of the Joint Commissioner shall not apply. (5) The directions and orders referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) may, wherever considered necessary or appropriate for the proper management of the work, require two or more Assessing Officers (whether or not of the same class) to exercise and perform, concurrently, the powers and functions in respect of any area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases; and, where such powers and functions are exercised and performed concurrently by the Assessing Officers of different classes, any authority lower in rank amongst them shall exercise the powers and perform the functions as any higher authority amongst them may direct, and, further, ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act') between the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2012-13. 4. However, a perusal of the paper book reveals that the Tribunal has found that the acknowledgment receipt of the return of income shows that the respondent Assessee had been filing its returns since inception i.e. Assessment Year 2005-06 at the address mentioned at New Delhi. It is pertinent to mention that in the Assessment Year 2012-13 when the Assessee's case was selected for scrutiny, the Assessee had within a month filed its objection to the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata stating that the Assessee's jurisdiction lies with Assessing Officer, Range-18, New Delhi. 5. This Court is in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that as the Assessee had raised objection within the time provided under Section 124(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer, if not, satisfied with the correctness of the claim should have referred the matter for determination before the assessment was made to the PCIT. However, in the present case, the Assessing Officer rejected the objection regarding the jurisdiction and referred the matter to the PCIT to decide the issue after sixteen months. Fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to till this year by mentioning the address/es of Kolkata. Even after making several attempts by the Assessee to change the jurisdiction from Patna to Kolkata with the department were gone in vain. The Assessee even approaches the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court seeking a direction to CBDT/Department to resolve the issue by assigning the assessee to the ITO having proper territorial jurisdiction. Finally, the National Securities Depository Limited (NSDL) has admitted the mistake vide letter dated 12.04.2018, wherein vide letter dated 12.04.2018, requested the ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna to migrate the PAN to the correct jurisdiction i.e., ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata. The copy of the letter issued by the NSDL is placed at Page No.67 to 71 of the paper book filed by the Assessee. The relevant portion of the said notice is produced as under:- "Upon receipt of your said letter dated March 21, 2018, we had verified the above application form (copy enclosed) and it was observed that AO code which was supposed to be mentioned by the PAN applicant in the application form, was not mentioned. It is noticed that, the AO code details were digitized as "PTN-W-26-2' by TIN-FC, Alankit Limited sin....