Section 143(2) & 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 04 March 2010 This query is : Resolved
We, a private limited company having regd. office at Delhi and Head Office at Ghaziabad, filing our return of income for last 12 years at Ghaziabad from head office address. Returns of income were also processed u/s 143(1) at Ghaziabad. Return of income for the A Y 2006-07 mentioning therein address of Ghaziabad was submited electronically. The case was selected for scrutiny under (CASS). Necessary notice u/s 143(2) was issued but by ITO of Delhi. No notice was received by the company or any of its director. A final notice was issued by Delhi ITO on the directors of the company which was also received but on the date of hearing itself. Hence it was not possible to appear on the date fixed. Order u/s 144 was passed by Delhi ITO adding all the amount of share capital, unsecured loans and 20% of sales. There was no fresh share capital issued or unsecured loan received during the year under question. We are now in appeal with CIT challenging the jurisdiction of the Delhi ITO. Delhi ITO is saying that he has the jurisdiction over case due to our address available with IT PAN Data base which is of our regd. office at Delhi. Let me know what cource of action is best in this case.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Kumar Thadhani (Expert) 04 March 2010
According to law Delhi ITO do not possess the jurisdiction over your company's case since you say that you had been assessed since last 12 years at the Ghaziabad and that you had also order for 143(1) FOR A.Y.2006-07 mentioning Ghaziabad address.Any contest your appeal before CIT(A) and that to prove you him that you do not have jurisdiction and that order quashed from them. And also forward such corressponces with THE ORIGINAL ITO who at present is having over your case.

M.V.GIRI (Expert) 04 March 2010
in my opinion, the basic service of notice is not in proper.The notice has been served at the last moment. So the proper opportunity to be heard is not given by the ITO and the order passed by the ITO is null and void.
Secondly the change in jurisdiction is to be intimated to the assessee in advance. In your case there is no such intimation is received so far.Eventhough at the time of taking PAN the address may be changed afterwards and the file to be transfered to the concerned juridictional officer.Even if the notice has been issued by the Delhi ITO, the same should be transferd to the Ghaziabad ITO for further proceedings.
Now you can plead before the CIT(A) on the subject about the principles of natural jutice and question to be raised on the jurisdiction of the Delhi ITO.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 04 March 2010
I do agree with Giri

Vineet (Expert) 05 March 2010
The ITO at Delhi cannot suo motto assume jurisdiction in your case unless the CIT Ghaziabad transfers your case to Delhi after according an opportunity to your company. A Company may have multiple addresses depending upon its places of business and offices.

You continue challenging jurisdiction of Delhi AO and produce copies of all earlier orders and return acknowledgements issued by Ghaziabad AO and ask for a copy of order u/s 127(2) passed by the Commissioner transferring your case. The order deserves to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

soumitra basu (Expert) 02 April 2010
What the DELHI ITO SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IS TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 142 FIRSTLY AND THEN NOTICE U/S. 143(2). THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) SHOULD BE ISSUED ON THE VALID OF A VALID RETURN. IN YOUR CASE THE NOTICE IS AB INITIO VOID.

Section 143(2) & 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961

Similar Resolved Queries :