ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JEWEL ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3585/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 December 2015AY 2009-102 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO in Mumbai lacked jurisdiction as the assessee's case properly belonged to the ITO, Dhule. The transfer of jurisdiction was not done correctly as per section 127(2) of the Act and without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) in Mumbai who passed an order under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee resided in Dhule and had been filing returns there for many years.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer in Mumbai had the legal jurisdiction to pass an order against the assessee, given the assessee's residence and filing history in Dhule.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 127(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 29/09/2015Pronounced: 04/12/2015

O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), dated 14-3-2011, for the assessment year 2002-03 to 2004-05, in the matter of order passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the I.T.Act, by ITO- 26(1)(1), Mumbai.

2.

In all these appeals, the assessee had challenged the jurisdiction of AO-26(1)(1), who had passed order u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of I.T. Act.

3.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. From the record we found that jurisdiction of the assessee’s case for all these years lies with the ITO, Dhule, where he resides, having salary income received at Dhule since many years from Bharat Petroleum Corporation. The assessee was also regularly filing his return at Dhule. Thus, the CIT/CCIT Nasik had the jurisdiction over Dhule area. However, the CIT-26, Mumbai 2 has no jurisdiction to assign the jurisdiction over the assessee’s case without passing order u/s.127(2) of the Act, and also without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Thus, we do not find any merit in the order passed by the ITO-26(1)(1) Mumbai without transfer of jurisdiction. In the interest of justice and fair-play, we direct the AO/ITO- 26(1)(1) to transfer all these files to the ITO Dhule for deciding all the appeals afresh by considering the revised return filed by the assessee at ITO, Dhule. We direct accordingly.

4.

In the result, all appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 04/12/2015.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →