GUNJAN GUPTA,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT-1, AGRA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) - 1, Agra dated 24.03.2021 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.

filed by assessee, which reads as under:

1. That the Ld. AO made an addition without appreciating the facts of the case that Assessing officer is not competent for making the assessment under Income Tax Act 1961 because it was not under is Jurisdiction. So, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra is also not justified to pass an order u/s 263 without under is jurisdiction.

2. That the honourable PCIT, Agra has urged to reopen the assessment under section 263 without appreciating the facts of the case that assessee is Income Tax Payer since last 25 years and Gunjan Gupta. vs. PCIT 2 assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 was completed under section 143(3) with capital amounting to Rs.22441756.00/-.”

3. In this case, learned Pr. CIT observed that on perusal of assessment records, it was noted that the case was selected under limited scrutiny for the reason – “substantial increase in capital in a year”. Capital of Rs.2,35,09,650/- was introduced during the year. It was also observed that the assessee has not shown any capital in the return filed for A.Y. 2015-16 and as per ITR filed for A.Y. 2016-17, the capital was of Rs.2,35,09,650/-. The assessee had not furnished any reply explaining the capital introduced. Hence, Pr. CIT noticed that instead of the entire capital a meagre amount of Rs.18,80,772/- being 8% of the above amount was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. In this regard, Pr. CIT issued a notice to the assessee. The assessee replied in this regard. Assessee inter alia has challenged the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer. The Pr. CIT in this regard was not convinced and held as under: “4. The reply submitted by the assessee has been carefully considered vis-à-vis the material available on record. The assessee's contention regarding AO having no jurisdiction over the assessee is not acceptable. From a perusal PAN history on ITBA it is found that the PAN of the assessee was lying with ITO, Ward-2(1)(1)/ITO-2(1)(5), Agra from 26. 12. 2002 to 27.11.2018 and now it is lying with Circle-2(1)(1), Agra. As the retuned income was above Rs. 15,00,000/- for AY 2016-17, the case of the assessee was transferred to the Circle-2(1)(1), Agra as per CBDT instructions. Regarding request of the assessee to transfer her case to Noida, it is noticed from the records that the DCIT, Circle-1, Noida and Pr. CIT, Noida, vide letters dated 15.10.2018 and 22.10.2018 respectively had conveyed their objection to the proposed transfer of the case of the assessee to the AO at Noida. In this regard, the assessee has placed her reliance on the judgment of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of M/s Rungta Irrigation Limited vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1) Kolkata. However, the facts of the case relied upon are different from the case of the assessee. In the case of M/s Rungta Irrigation Limited vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1)

Gunjan Gupta. vs. PCIT 3 Kolkata, the tribunal held that the order issued by the CIT, Delhi was invalid as the jurisdiction of the assessee has been transferred from Delhi to Ranchi and the AO of Ranchi has not issued any notice in this regard. However, in the case of the assessee no such transfer order was passed by the Pr. CIT concerned. The ITO-2(1)(5), Agra, who issued the notice u/s 143(2) dated 03.07.2017 and DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra who passed assessment order, both AOs being under the jurisdiction of Addl./Joint CIT, Range-2(1), Agra had concurrent jurisdiction over the assessee.

5. Regarding sudden increase in capital, it is noticed that the assessee has filed her ITR-4 for AY 2016-17 showing capital of Rs.2,35,09,650/-. For AY 2015-16, a copy of ITR-2 (Invalid) is placed on file in which no detail of capital is mentioned. It is also noticed that the assessee failed to file the relevant papers/documents before the AO during assessment proceedings. Further, the assessee has filed a copy of ITR-2 for AY 2015-16 along with her submissions, wherein no detail of capital accounts mentioned. Thus the assertion made by the assessee that the capital of Rs.2,35,09,650/- is fully explained as per previous ITR records needs verification.

Gunjan Gupta. vs. PCIT 4 6. In the result, this appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.12.2023