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

ITA 3585/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2194 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 15-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KESHAV BHUJLE
• Keywords: Salary income; Revised return
• Section: 144; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA , A M & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , J M ./ ITA NO S . 5989 & 5990 & 2992 / MUM/20 1 1 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 2 - 03 TO 2004 - 05 ) PUNDLIK LAXMAN MASANE, PLOT NO.35, MAHAVIR SOCIETY, MALEGAON ROAD, DHULE - 424001 VS. ITO WARD - 26(1)(1), CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A BLPM 5522 B ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KESHAV BHUJLE /REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MODI / DATE OF HEARING : 2 9 / 09 / 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/ 12 /2015 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : TH ESE A RE THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), DATED 14 - 3 - 2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2 - 03 TO 2004 - 05 , IN THE MATTER OF ORDER P ASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S. 14 7 OF THE I.T.ACT , BY ITO - 26(1)(1), MUMBAI. 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HA D 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 ASSESSEES 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 R ETURN AT DHULE. THUS, THE CIT /CCIT NASIK HAD THE JURISDICTION OVER DHULE AREA. HOWEVER, TH E CIT - 26, MUMBAI ITA NO. 5989 - 90&2992 /M/1 1 2 HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ASSIGN THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES 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 A SSESSEE AT ITO, DHULE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 4 . IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEAL S OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 04/12 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 04/12 /201 5 . . /PKM , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//