Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO
This appeal and the cross objections filed by revenue and assessee respectively are directed against the order dated 27/05/2015 of Pr.CIT(A), Bangalore-3. The grounds taken by the revenue in its appeal are as under:
& CO 209/Bang/2015 M/s.iGate Infrastructre Management Services Ltd. Page 2 of 5 1. “The order of the learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned C1T(A) erred in holding that the action of the AO is not tenable and jurisdiction cannot be assumed by another officer unless an appropriate order is passed by the competent authority basing on a mere statement made by the assessee that he had shifted the registered office from Delhi to Bangalore without actually producing the proof for the same by way of an order u/s 127 of the Income-tax 1961.
For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and /or delete any of the grounds mentioned above. ”
2. Assessee had filed return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring loss of Rs.1,25,14,930/- on 28/11/2003. Assessment was completed on 20/03/2006 accepting the loss. Thereafter, there was a notice under section 148 issued on 11/10/2007. The said notice was issued by the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi. Assessment was thereafter completed by making an addition of Rs.1,17,40,339/- through a disallowance of inventory write-off, by the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi.
3. Assessee moved in appeal before CIT(A). One of the contentions raised was that the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi had no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 147 of the Act. As per & CO 209/Bang/2015 M/s.iGate Infrastructre Management Services Ltd. Page 3 of 5 assessee, this case already stood transferred to Bangalore and it was duly intimated to the Department. Assessee also pointed out that original assessment was completed under section 143(3) wherein the claim of loss arising on account of write off of inventory which was subject matter of addition made in the reassessment was already considered. As per assessee, the entire share holding of M/s.IT & T Ltd., was transferred to iGate Global Solutions Ltd. on 20/05/2003 and pursuant to such transfer, name of the assessee was changed to iGate Infrastructure Management Services Ltd., Assessee pointed out that its registered office was shifted to Bangalore and such shifting was confirmed by the Company Law Board vide order dated 03/05/2005. As per assessee, Registrar of Companies had issued a fresh certificate of registration on 26/5/2005. Letter dated 20/10/2005 informing change of registered office from Delhi to Bangalore was placed before the CIT(A). As per assessee, its returns were being filed in Bangalore since assessment year 2005-06 and assessments were concluded by orders under section 143(3) which were all passed in Bangalore. CIT(A) after going through the paper book enclosing copies of letters filed by the assessee before the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi and copies of assessment orders for assessment year 2005- 06, 2006-07, passed by the ACIT, Circle 11(4), Bangalore, held that the DCIT,Circle-11(1), New Delhi has no jurisdiction to assess assessee. As per CIT(A), AO had not taken into account & CO 209/Bang/2015 M/s.iGate Infrastructre Management Services Ltd. Page 4 of 5 the fact of change in jurisdiction. CIT(A) noted that assessee had filed letter dated 5/11/2008 before the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi in which the issue regarding jurisdiction was brought to his notice. Thus, according to him, order passed by the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi, was without jurisdiction and ab initio void.
Now, before us, learned DR assailing the order of CIT(A), submitted that assessee had not produced any orders from competent authority allowing its transfer of jurisdiction from New Delhi to Bangalore. Per contra, ld.AR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Revenue has not disputed the finding of CIT(A) that assessee had informed change in registered office from New Delhi to Bangalore on 20/10/2005. It is also not disputed that assessments for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 were done by ACIT, Circle 11(4), Bangalore on 6/12/2007 and 29/9/2008 prior to the impugned assessment done by the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi on 5/12/2008 for assessment year 2003-04. It was also pointed out before AO at New Delhi that its registered office having been shifted, jurisdiction over it vests with the Bangalore income-tax office. Ld.AO, if he was not in agreement with the assessee, ought to have made a determination of the issue of jurisdiction, when assessee had questioned it, in the manner laid down in section 124(4) of the Act, which apparently was not done. This & CO 209/Bang/2015 M/s.iGate Infrastructre Management Services Ltd. Page 5 of 5 being the factual position, we are of the opinion that DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi had no jurisdiction on 5/12/2008 to pass re- assessment on assessee. We uphold the order of the CIT(A) in this regard.
Coming to the cross objections of assessee, such cross objection assail merits of addition and reopening done under section 147 of the Act. Since we have upheld the order of CIT(A) holding that the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi had no jurisdiction to pass the order on assessee, the cross objections filed by the assessee have become infructuous.
In the result, both the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objections of assessee are dismissed.