DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging the order dt.24.2.15 of CIT-I, Mumbai, passed u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessee has filed the present appeal.Assessee-company, engaged in the business of providing manage -ment consultancy and sale/maintenance of software, filed its return of income on 12.10. 2010, declaring income of Rs.47.55 lakhs. Later on, a revised computation of income was filed on 30.03.2012,declaring income of Rs.3.89crores.In the revised return depreciation was claimed at Rs.58.11 lakhs as against Rs.3.80 crores,claimed in the original return.The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 28.03.2003. 2.After the perusal of the records the CIT observed that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.Accordingly,he issued a notice u/s. 263 of the Act on 19.01.2015,asking it to explain as to why the revisionary order should not be passed.In response to the notice,the assessee,in its letter dt.4.02.2015,challenged the jurisdiction of the CIT as under :- “Further we would like to state that as per the new jurisdiction effective from Nov. 2014 , jurisdiction of our client’s case would be with the Commissioner of Income tax-6, Mumbai.” However,the CIT passed the revisionary order and set aside the order passed by the AO with certain directions. 3.Before us,the Authorised Representative (AR) argued that CIT-I had no jurisdiction over the assessee, that in its first reply it had objected to issuing of notice, that the CIT did not dispose the ground about jurisdiction while passing the order. He referred to the jurisdiction of Principal Commissioners of Income Tax -1 to 35 w.e.f. 15.11.2014.The Departmental Representative(DR) stated that matter could be decided on merits.