INGWENYA MINERAL OPERATIONS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1170/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 March 2019AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for consideration of transferring the files to Karnataka, which has the jurisdiction. The assessee was directed to provide relevant evidence to the AO for this transfer.

What were the facts?

The assessee shifted its registered office from West Bengal to Karnataka. The assessee conveyed this information to the lower authorities, but it was not considered appropriately. The AO and CIT(A) had acknowledged the change of registered office.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred in not considering the assessee's change of registered office and its implications on jurisdiction. The primary issue is the correct jurisdiction for assessment after the registered office relocation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D”, KOLKATA

For Respondent: DR &
Hearing: 28.02.2019Pronounced: 15.03.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SH.S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) Ingwenya Mineral Operations Pvt.Ltd., ITO, 209/12, 7th Cross, SBM Colony, vs Ward-1(1), Banashankari, Karnatka-560050. Kolkata. PAN-AACCI3216M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Prakash Hegdge, CA Respondent by Sh. Radheyshyam, CIT DR & Sh.Shankar Halder, JCIT Date of Hearing 28.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 15.03.2019 ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by CIT(A)-1, Kolkata for AY 2013-14 u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”).

2.

Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. The contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee shifted his registered office from the State of West Bengal to the State of Karnataka and though it was conveyed to both the authorities below and did not consider the same in right prospective. He refers to page No.88 & 89 of the Paper Book which clearly shows that the office of AO and the CIT(A) acknowledged the said fact of shifting of registered office of assessee to State of Karnataka. In view of the same and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for his consideration to transfer the files etc. to the State of Karnataka having jurisdiction. The assessee is directed to place the relevant evidences before the AO seeking such transfer.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.03.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →