HIRDAI PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(5), MOHALI

At the very outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessment order is without jurisdiction. While taking us through the record, he submitted that the AO had received an information through Annual Information A.Y.2011-12 2 Wing that assessee has sold a house property situated at House No. 171, Sector 12, Panchkula. The Sale Ded was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Panchkula. The assessee did not file the return and did not disclose capital gain on sale of house property for a consideration of Rs.1,20,20,000/- hence, a notice u/s 148 was issued by Shri S.S.Meena, ITO, Ward-5, Panchkula. Copy of the notice is available on page No. 23 of the Paper Book. The reasons recorded by ITO, Ward, Panchkula are available at page Nos. 29 to 31 of the Paper Book. The case record of the assessee was thereafter transferred to ITO, Ward-5 (4) Chandigarh who returned it back to ITO, Ward-5, Panchkula contending therein that this case has no jurisdiction with her. Copy of this communication is available on page 25. Thereafter, ITO, Ward, Panchkula has transferred this case to ITO, Ward 6(3) Mohali and copy of the letter is available on page 27. The ITO, Ward 6(5) Mohali has passed the impugned assessment order. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has the PAN and jurisdiction over him lies in Chandigarh because the address in the PAN is of Chandigarh. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that A.Y.2011-12 3 if ITO, Ward-5, Panchkula was not holding jurisdiction then how he can take cognizance for issuance of a notice u/s 148 because this notice u/s 148 has been issued on 28.03.2018. Had this be treated as a notice without jurisdiction, then time limit to issue notice for assessment year 2011-12 would expire on 31.03.2018. The time limit is only for six years and six years would end on 31.03.2018.

The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that since assessee did not file return, therefore, notice was issued on the last known address which is reflected in the Sale Deed. Thus, notice issued by ITO, Ward-5, Panchkula is to be construed as a valid notice because PAN number is not being disclosed in the Sale Deed nor assessee filed the return. When we confronted him as to how the case is to be A.Y.2011-12 4 transferred by the AO to ITO, Ward 6(5), Mohali, then he submitted that such transfer was made on the request of the assessee because jurisdiction over the assessee was in Mohali.

We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. For the argument’s sake, if we assume that it was not practically possible for the Revenue to lay its hand on the latest address of the assessee or which has been shown in the PAN record, then it has no other choice to issue notice on the last known address i.e. the address of Panchkula. Then also, the AO, Ward 5, Panchkula would be construed as having jurisdiction. If assessee has filed an application for transfer of the jurisdiction to ITO, Ward 6(5), Mohali, then this application ought to have been put up before the Competent Authority contemplated in Section 127 i.e. Pr. Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner, as the situation demands as per clause (1) and (2) of this Section. It is the Competent Authority who can transfer the jurisdiction from one AO to other AO. The AO has no jurisdiction to transfer a case from him to any A.Y.2011-12 5 other AO. This has not been provided anywhere in the Income Tax Act.

In the result, appeal is allowed.

As far as Stay Application is concerned, that has become redundant because we have already decided the appeal itself.

In the result, Stay Application is rejected and appeal is allowed.