CAPT. VIVEK ANAND PANDEY,BHAVNAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite of issue of notice. Under the circumstances we dispose off the cases ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the ld. DR. The assessee had repeatedly stated before the AO that he resides in Bhavnagar (Gujarat) and that his case may be transferred from Kolkata to Bhavnagar (Gujarat). The record suggests that the transfer has not taken place despite several reminders. A perusal of the assessment order itself reveals that the AO knew that the assessee resides in Bhavnagar (Gujarat). The AO records that the file could not be transferred to Bhavnagar (Gujarat) as the assessee had not filed a return in compliance to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). Consequently ex-parte order was passed by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) also passed ex-parte order.

Aggrieved, the assessee is before us.

2 to 825/Kol/2017 AYs: 2004-05 to 2005-06 Capt. Vivek Anand Pandey 4. After hearing the ld. DR we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction of the assessee lies with the Income Tax Officer at Bhavnagar (Gujarat) and not with DCIT, Circle-16, Kolkata under Section 124 r.w.s. 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. When the assessee has been repeatedly pleading that the jurisdiction of his case is with ITO, Bhavnagar, Gujarat and when the A.O. has been sending all the notices to the Bhavnagar address and when the address mentioned in all the orders passed by the A.O. is Bhavnagar address, it is clear that the A.O. at Kolkata, has no jurisdiction over this case. All the impugned orders passed in this case are without jurisdiction. Hence order passed u/s 147/144 on 30.11.2009 for the AY 2004-05 in 271(1)(c) for the AY 2004-05 on 30.05.2010 and order passed u/s 143(3)/147 for the AY 2005-06 on 29.12.2008 and order passed u/s 271(1)(c) for the AY 2005-06 on 25.06.2009 are hereby quashed.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed. Kolkata, the 29th November, 2019.