Shri Naresh Kumar Doshi, Mandsaur V. The ACIT, Circle, Ratlam

MA 93/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0257 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K JAIN CAS
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

-: 1: - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : AALPD6365Q M.A.NOS. 93 & 94/IND/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NOS. 62 & 63/IND/2012) A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 SHRI NARES H KUMAR DOSHI, MANDSAUR VS. A CIT, CIRCLE RATLAM APP LICANT RESPONDENT APP LICANT BY : S/ SHRI ARUN PADLIYA AND S.K. JAIN, CAS RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. . VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 12 . 0 4 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 . 0 5 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN RESPECT OF ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES A PPEAL IN I.T.A.NOS. 62 & 63/IND/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 07-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY, ORDER DATED 2.7.2012. -: 2: - 2 2. THROUGH THESE PETITIONS, IT WAS CONTENDED BY LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT OUT OF SIX GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL MEMO, GROUND NO. 1 (A) TO (D) WERE DECIDED B Y THE TRIBUNAL AS NOT PRESSED. AS PER LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E , THESE GROUNDS WERE DULY ARGUED AND PRESSED DURING THE COU RSE OF HEARING. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT. 3. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF TEL EPHONE AND VEHICLES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 8.66 % AND 9.49 % RESPECTIVELY, WHICH WAS REDUCED BY THE LD.CIT(A) TO 4.33 % AND 4.75 %. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAVE WRONGLY RESTRICT ED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10 %. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND GONE THROUGH THE MISC. APPLICATI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS AN APPARENT M ISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DIRECTING THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO RESTRICT DISALLOWANCE TO 10 % OF RESPECTIVE EXPENSE S. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECTIFY THE APPARENT MISTAKE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS, WE UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE AS SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) I.E. 4.33 % IN CASE OF TELEPHONE EXPE NSES AMOUNTING -: 3: - 3 TO RS. 15000/- AND 4.75 % IN CASE OF VEHICLE EXPENS ES AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,000/-. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. WE FOUND THAT WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL VIDE OR DER DATED 2.7.2012, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED ON MERIT WER E DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL. WITH RESPECT TO TECHNICAL/LEGAL GROUND NO . 1(A) TO (D), IT WAS STATED TO BE NOT PRESSED. IN THESE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM DY. CIT, CHITT ORGARH TO ITO, MANDSAUR. 6. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY LD. AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, DISMISSING GROUND NO. 1(A) TO (D) AMOUNTS TO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECAL L THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THE LIMITED EXTENT TO DECIDE GROUND NOS. 1(A) TO (D). OUR DECISION ON GROUND NOS. 1(A) TO (D) IS AS UNDER. 7. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE WAS ALSO ARGUED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND ASSESSEE HA S ALSO FILED DETAILED SUBMISSION FOR THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, AFTE R CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND LD. SENIOR DR, THE LEGAL GROUNDS ARE DECIDED AS UNDER. 8. IN THE LEGAL GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED ACTI ON OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT SECTION 124 OF INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961, AND -: 4: - 4 NOT SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IS APP LICABLE TO THE ACT OF TRANSFER OF CASE BY DY. CIT, CHITTORGARH TO ITO, MANDSAUR. IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDIN G THAT TRANSFER OF THE CASE WAS ILLEGAL, SINCE MADE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO HIS ( DY. CIT, CHITTORGARH) SUPERVISORS VIZ. CHIEF COMMISSION ER, UDAIPUR AND CHIEF COMMISSIONER, INDORE AND ALSO WITHOUT REC ORDING REASONS. AS PER LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE , THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE TRANSFER OF PENDING C ASE ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, ADDRESSED OF MANDSAUR WAS GIVEN, WHEN IN THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ALSO ADDRESS OF MANDSAUR WA S GIVEN, BUT THE TAX AUTHORITIES, CHITTORGARTH HAD PROCEEDED WITH THE ASSESSMENT IN THAT YEAR WAS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JUR ISDICTION. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO LACK OF J URISDICTION, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM , IS VITIATED AND AS SUCH NULLITY. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAV E ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE CASE LAWS CITED BY LD. AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF INSTANT CA SE. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT SOURCE OF ASSESSEES INCOME W AS FROM -: 5: - 5 TRANSPORT BUSINESS. FOR BOTH THESE YEARS, THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN IN THE OFFICE OF ITO WARD CHITTORGARH. A SSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS REOPENED U/S 147 BY REC ORDING REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194I, ON THE PAYMENT OF LEASE RENT ON HIRING OF LORRY/ BUS/TRUCKS, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA), SUCH EXPENSES WERE NOT ALLOWABLE. SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WH ILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CHITTARG ORAH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASS ESSEE IN THE LATEST RETURNS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WHICH W AS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF ITO WARD 2., CHITTORGARH WAS GIVEN AS 6, STADIUM MARKET, MHOW NEEMUCH ROAD, NEEMUCH, MANDSAUR. BASED ON SUCH CHANGE OF ADDRESS BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, RET URN FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2007-08 & 2008-09 WERE T RANSFERRED TO THE ITO, MANDSAUR, WHO WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA AS ASSIGNED U/S 124 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THERE AFTER, ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS COMPLETE D BY ITO, MANDSAUR, WHEREAS THAT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 W AS COMPLETED BY THE ACIT, RATLAM, WHO WAS HAVING CONCU RRENT -: 6: - 6 JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF MANDSAUR DISTRICT OV ER HIS CERTAIN MONETARY LIMIT. 10. CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS T HAT HIS CASE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE DY. CIT , CHITTORGARH ON HIS OWN DIRECTLY TO ITO, MANDSAUR, AS THE SECTIO N 124 OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO THE CASES OF THE ASSES SEE. AS PER LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, THE ONLY WAY TO TRANSFER THE CASES WAS BY WAY OF ORDER U/S 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 . WE FOUND THAT CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN GREAT DETAI L AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 4.2 GROUND NO.(2): THROUGH THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR SAYING THAT THE DCIT, CHITTORGARH HAD NO AUTHORITY U/S. 127 OF THE IT. ACT TO TRANSFER THE CASE DIRECT TO ITO, MANDSAUR; THAT UNDER THE AFORESAID SECTION ONLY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER IS EMPOWERED TO TRANSFER THE CASE AND THAT TOO TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBORDINATE TO THEM; AND THAT NO OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSFER THE CASE WAS GIVEN BY THE DCIT, CHITTORGARH. ON THAT BASIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE MAIN SOURCE OF ASSESSEE IS -: 7: - 7 FROM TRANSPORT BUSINESS. HE HAD FILED HIS RETURN IN THE OFFICE OF ITO, WARD -2, CHITTORGARH. SUBSEQUENTLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 WAS INITIATED BY THE DCIT, CHITTORGARH BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S.148 FOR THE REASONS THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO MAKE TDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194I ONTO THE PAYMENT OF LEASE RENT ON HIRING OF LORRIES/BUSES/TRUCKS AND THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA), SUCH EXPENSES WERE NOT ALLOWABLE. SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN A.Y. 2008-09. THE CASE FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS TAKEN UP UNDER SCRUTINY BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2). THE DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO [DCIT CHITTORGARH] FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LATEST RETURN OF A.Y. 2009-10 [ WHICH WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF ITO WARD-2, CHITTORGARH] WAS GIVEN AS 6, STADIUM MARKET, MHOW NEEMUCH ROAD, MANDSAUR. BASED ON THAT THE RETURNS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE ITO, MANDSAUR, WHO WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE AREAS WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF MANDSAUR, AS ASSIGNED U/S. 124 OF THE IT. ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2007- 08 WAS COMPLETED BY THE ITO MANDSAUR -: 8: - 8 WHEREAS THAT OF FOR AY 2008-09 WAS COMPLETED BY ACIT RATLAM [ WHO WAS HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF MANDSAUR DISTRICT OVER A CERTAIN MONETARY LIMIT]. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, DETAILED SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME FINDS PLACE AT PARA 3 IN THIS APPELLATE ORDER. THE BASIC GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HIS CASE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE DCIT, CHITTORGARH ON HIS OWN DIRECTLY TO THE ITO, MANDSAUR AS SECTION 124 OF THE IT. ACT DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE; AND THAT THE ONLY WAY TO TRANSFER THE CASE WAS BY WAY OF ORDER U/S.127 . OF THE IT. ACT WHICH WAS NOT RESORTED TO. THE ISSUE IS CONSIDERED. WHAT I FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCOME FROM PLYING OF TRUCKS AND BUSES, TRANSPORTATION DALALI, AUTO SERVICE CENTRE AND TRADING OF TYRES AND SPARE PARTS ETC UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF VARIOUS PROPRIETORY CONCERNS AT CHITTORGARH, NIMBAHADA, MANDSAUR, NEEMUCH, RATLAM AND MUMBAI. THE NAME OF THESE CONCERNS ARE M/S. . ASHOK GOODS TRANSPORT SERVICE MANDSAUR, M/S. ASHOK GOODS TRANSPORT SERVICE NEEMUCH, M/S. ASHOK GOODS TRANSPORT SERVICE RATLAM, M/S . ASHOK GOODS TRANSPORT SERVICE CHITTORGARH, M/S . ASHOK GOODS TRANSPORT SERVICE MUMBAI, M/S . ASHOK -: 9: - 9 GOODS TRANSPORT SERVICE NIMBAHEDA, M/S . PRABHU KRIPA TATA TRANSPORT SERVICE CENTRE, M/S . KESARIYAJI TRUCK TOLL KANTA AND M/S. KESARIYAJI DAL & FLOUR MILLS. HE WAS FILING RETURN FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS IN THE INCOME TAX OFFICE CHITTORGARH (PERHAPS ON THE BASIS OF HIS PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS AT CHITTORGARH). IN THE RETURN FOR A.Y.2009-10, WHICH WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF ITO-2, CHITTORGARH, HOWEVER, THE ADDRESS WAS GIVEN AS 6, STADIUM MARKET, MHOW NEEMUCH ROAD, MANDSAUR. CHITTORGARH COMES UNDER THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN, WHEREAS MANDSAUR IS WITHIN THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. HOWEVER, GEOGRAPHICALLY, BOTH THE PLACES ARE ADJOINING DISTRICTS. BASED ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE RETURN, THE ITO-2, CHITTORGARH TRANSFERRED THE RETURN FOR A.Y.2009- 10 TO THE ITO, MANDSAUR (HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DISTRICT OF MANDSAUR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 124). THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ALSO TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY (UNDER CASS) AND THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DCIT CHITTORGARH, WITH WHOM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 WERE CONTINUING AT THAT TIME, HAD TO ALSO SERVE QUESTIONNAIRES ON THE ASSESSEE AT HIS MANDSAUR ADDRESS. CONSEQUENTLY, HE TOO TRANSFERRED THE ASSESSMENT FOLDERS FOR BOTH THE -: 10: - 10 PENDING ASSESSMENT YEARS TO ITO, MANDSAUR. ALL THIS WAS DONE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD GIVEN HIS ADDRESS OF MANDSAUR DISTRICT ON WHICH THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ASSIGNED U/S.124 OF THE IT. ACT VESTED WITH ITO, MANDSAUR. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR TRANSFERRING THE CASE FROM CHITTORGARH TO MANDSAUR, ORDER U/S.127 WAS NOT REQUIRED. GENERALLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127 IS RESORTED TO IN THOSE CASES WHICH REQUIRE TRANSFER OF THE CASE FROM THE AO HAVING NATURAL JURISDICTION (ASSIGNED U/S.124) TO ANY OTHER AO WITH A VIEW OF CO-ORDINATED INVESTIGATION (ALONGWITH OTHER CASES) WHICH SOMETIMES ARE NECESSARY. HAD ASSESSEE NOT GIVEN HIS ADDRESS OF MANDSAUR ON THE RETURN ON HIS OWN, THEN THE CASE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TILL ANY SPECIFIC ORDER WAS PASSED U/S.127. IN THAT CASE, QUESTION OF REQUIRED OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE ARISEN. A PLEA HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT ASSESSEE CHANGED HIS ADDRESS FROM PRATAPGARH (CHITTORGARH) TO MANDSAUR IN THE A.Y. 2009-10 FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR HIS CONVENIENCE WITHOUT CHANGE OF PLACE OF ADDRESS. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT CHANGE IN ADDRESS WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHIFTING HIS FAMILY FROM PRATAPGARH (RAJASTHAN) TO MANDSAUR (M.P.), SO THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE -: 11: - 11 ASSESSEE (FROM PRATAPGARH DUE TO HIS MOVEMENT FROM PLACE TO PLACE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE) OFFICIAL NOTICES COULD BE RECEIVED BY FAMILY MEMBERS AT MANDSAUR. IT IS CONTENDED THAT HIS BUSINESS IS STILL CONTINUED AT PRATAPGARH (RAJ.). IN THIS CONTEXT, I FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT BUSINESS OF THE PROPREITORY CONCERN IN THE NAME OF ASHOK GOODS TRANSPORT SERVICES AT CHITTORGARH, RATLAM AND NIMBAHEDA HAD DISCONTINUED SINCE F.Y.2006- 07 AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ITO. IN THE SITUATION, ON THE BASIS OF THE PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS AND THE ADDRESS OF MANDSAUR AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSEQUENT RETURN, THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE GOT VESTED WITH ITO, MANDSAUR (IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JURISDICTION ASSIGNED TO HIM U/S.124). THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO IRREGULARITY IN TRANSFERRING OF THE CASE BY THE ITO / ACIT, CHITTORGARH TO ITO, MANDSAUR. I ALSO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE OFFICERS OF MANDSAUR HAVING NATURAL TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD EXPECT FINALISATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE DCIT CHITTORGARH BY SERVING THE NOTICES TO HIM IN MANDSAUR WHICH COMES UNDER A DIFFERENT STATE. -: 12: - 12 IF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERS MANDSAUR AS QUITE NEAR TO CHITTORGARH BEING ADJOINING DISTRICT AND FOR THAT REASON HE EXPECTS DCIT CHITTORGARH TO SERVE HIM THE NOTICES AT MANDSAUR THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO GRIEVANCE TO HIM IF THE CASES ALTOGETHER ARE TRANSFERRED TO MANDSAUR ITSELF. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT ITO, MANDSAUR AND ACIT, RATLAM DID HAVE NATURAL JURISDICTION ON THE BASIS OF TERRITORIAL AREA ASSIGNED TO THEM U/S.124 AND THEREFORE THEY WERE COMPETENT TO PROCEED AHEAD AND MAKE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STANDS DISMISSED. 11. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY CIT(A) THAT BUSINESS OF THE PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF ASHOK GOODS TRANSPORT SERVICE AT CHITTORGARH, RA TLAM AND NIMABAHEDA, HAD DISCONTINUED SINCE FINANCIAL YEAR 2 006-07 AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ITO. ACCORDINGLY, I N VIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AND ADDRESS OF MANDSAUR AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN THE SUBSEQUENT RETURN, THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE GOT VESTED WITH THE ITO, MANDSAUR, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124. ACCORDINGLY, THERE W AS NO IRREGULARITY IN TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO ITO/ACIT, CHITTORGARH TO -: 13: - 13 ITO MANDSAUR. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD EXPECT FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY DY. CIT, CHITTORGARH BY SERVING NOTICE TO HIM IN MA NDSAUR, WHICH COMES UNDER A DIFFERENT STATE. IN VIEW OF THE FINDI NGS GIVEN BY CIT(A), WHICH IS AS PER MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ITO , MANDSAUR AND ACIT, RATLAM, DID HAVE CORRECT AND NATURAL JURISDIC TION ON THE BASIS OF TERRITORIAL AREA ASSIGNED TO THEM U/S 124 AND, THEREFORE, THEY WERE COMPETENT TO PROCEED AHEAD AND MAKE ASSES SMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO M ENTION HERE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE ITO, MANDSAUR AND ACIT, RATLAM, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJ ECT FOR TRANSFER OF FILES. THE DETAILED FINDINGS RECORDED B Y THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 4 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, ARE AS PER MATERIAL ON R ECORD. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS CHANGED HIS ADDRESS, ANY A SSESSMENT FRAMED THEREAFTER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHOSE JURISDICTION THE CHANGED ADDRESS FALL CANNOT BE FAULTED. 12. ACCORDINGLY, THE TECHNICAL/LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE YEARS ARE DISMISSED. -: 14: - 14 13. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE DISPOSED OF IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH MAY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 17 TH MAY, 2013. CPU* 910165