CAPT. VIVEK ANAND PANDEY,BHAVNAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 16, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 825/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 November 2019AY 2005-062 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the assessee lies with the Income Tax Officer at Bhavnagar, Gujarat, not with the DCIT in Kolkata, as the AO in Kolkata lacked jurisdiction over the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee repeatedly stated that he resides in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, and requested his case be transferred from Kolkata. Despite this, assessment orders were passed ex-parte by the AO and CIT(A) in Kolkata.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer in Kolkata had the jurisdiction to pass orders against an assessee residing in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, despite repeated requests for transfer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 124,Section 127,Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Aby T. Varkey]

order : November 29th, 2019 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- All these appeals were filed by the assessee directed against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’ for short] and CIT(A)-19, Kolkata dated 07.07.2014 and 30.11.2016 for the AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06.

2.

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.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee is before us.

1.

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 ITA No. 822/Kol/2017 and order passed u/s 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.

5.

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

More judgments on Section 124

All 154 judgments and leading authorities on Section 124 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →