Itta/513/2014 Of The Director Of Income - Tax [Exemptions] v. G Pulla Reddy Charitable Trust

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.513 of 2014 DATED:5.8.2014 Between:The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions),Hyderabad.And … Appellant G. Pulla Reddy Charitable Trust,Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.513 of 2014 Judgment :(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order ofthe learned Tribunal dated 5.4.2013 in relation to the assessmentyear 1999-2000 on the following suggested questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, and having regard to the jurisdiction orderpassed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions),Hyderabad, in F.No.DIT(E)/Tech(1)/Jursdn/2004-05,dt.10.12.2004,assigning jurisdiction over the case ofthe assessee trust to ADIT (E)-II, Hyderabad, the order ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that theDDIT(E)-II, Hyderabad has no jurisdiction over the caseof the assessee, is not perverse ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in lawin holding that the DDIT(E)-II, Hyderabad, has nojurisdiction over the case of the assessee trust ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correctin law in quashing the reopening of assessment by theDDIT (E)-II-Hyderabad in the case of the assessee trust? On reading the three questions, it seems to us that thequestions relate to the jurisdiction of the Officer, namely DDIT(E)-II, Hyderabad. It was a case of reopening under Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and on fact, it was found by the learned Tribunal that a regular assessment was doneby the ACIT, Kurnool Range. The proceedings were initiated bythe Kurnool range from 9.12.2004. Thereafter, on the basis ofsome departmental notification, the above officer assumedjurisdiction to re-open the assessment. The learned Tribunal hasdealt with the issue, which is a mixed question of fact and law. We reproduce the undisputed factual position recorded by thelearned Tribunal. “The jurisdiction of the assessee is vested with theJCIT, Kurnool during the relevant assessment years. It is alsoon record that the issue of notice under Section 148 was bythe ACIT, Kurnool Range for A.Ys. 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee also filed aletter before that authority to treat the returns already filed withKurnool Range as the returns filed in response to the noticeunder Section 148 of the Act. On that basis, the belatedreturns are validated and also for filing the returns belatedly forthese assessment years there was levy of penalty underSection 272A(2)(e) of the Act. This levy of penalty was alsoconfirmed by the Tribunal. Once the jurisdiction is vested withthe Kurnool Range, there cannot be framing of assessment orissue of notice under Section 148 or framing assessment byany other authority than the Kurnool Range.” In view of the aforesaid factual finding, we are unable tohold otherwise. Further, in this case, the language of Sections 147and 148 of the Act says “Assessing Officer”. It does not sayOfficer of any description, as the asessee imputes. Hence, wedismiss this appeal. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall alsostand closed. No costs. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 5[th] August, 2014 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J pnb