ACIT, CHENNAI V. Siddarth Galada, CHENNAI

MA 318/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5394 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DURAI PARDIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, ' ' , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , ' # BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 318 /MDS/2016 ( ./I.T.A. NO.1536/MDS/2015) '$ $ /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE - 9, CHENNAI - 34. VS. SHRI SIDDHARTH GALADA, PLOT NO 85/16, SRIRANGAM AVENUE, EGMORE, CHENNAI - 600 008. [PAN: AADPG 9035A ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI DURAI PARDIAN, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE & /DATE OF HEARING : 20.01.2017 & /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 .02.2017 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS MISCELLANAEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE REVE NUE AS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO 1536/MDS/20 15 DATED 22.04.2016. THE REVENUE HAS FILED MISCELLANEOUS PETITION TO REC ALL OF ORDER OF HON'BLE M.P. NO. 318/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: ITAT, WHERE IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE CIT-9 DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD. DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING ARGUED THAT TH E CIT-9 HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE FOR PASSING THE ORDE R U/S. 263 OF THE ACT AS THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONS IDERED THE FACTS THAT THE JURISDICTION NOTIFICATION HAS CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 15.11.2014 AND THE REVISION ORDER WAS PASSED ON 25.05.2015 AND PRAYED FOR RECAL L OF THE ORDER. CONTRA, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. C IT-9 LACKS JURISDICTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WAS PASSED BY ITO BUSINESS WARD-VII(1), CHENNAI WHICH FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF CIT-7 AND REFERRED TO THE CHART EXPLAINING THE CHANGES OCCURR ED IN JURISDICTION EFFECTIVE FROM 15.11.2014 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY ADJU DICATED ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ORDER AND PRAYED FOR DISMISS ING MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE. 3. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE CIT-9 HAS JUR ISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-VII(1), CHENNAI HAS PASSED O RDER ON 26.03.2014. WHEREAS, THE CHANGE IN JURISDICTION AS PER THE CHAR T EXPLAINED BY THE LD. AR IS EFFECTIVE FROM 15.11.2014, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING OF THE M.P. NO. 318/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 26.03.2014 AND IF ANY JURISDICTIONAL CHANGE SHALL BE EFFECTIVE PROSPECTIV ELY AND FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. SO, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS MADE CATEG ORICAL FINDINGS IN PARA 6, 7 & 8 OF ITS ORDER ON THE JURISDICTIONAL ASPECTS CONS IDERING THE NOTIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO MERITS IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE AND DISMISSED THE PETITION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUA RY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. /CHENNAI, * /DATED: 02ND FEBRUARY, 2017. JPV & ,'-. /. /COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. ,02 /RESPONDENT 3. 3 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 3 /CIT 5. . ,'' /DR 6. $ /GF SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER