Niraj Kumar Suman, Son Of Mohan Prasad Singh, Address At v. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Muzaffarpur, Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8355 of 2024 ====================================================== Niraj Kumar Suman, Son of Mohan Prasad Singh, Address at C/O - S.KSharma, 230/25 E, 09, HDFC ATM, Railway Colony, Mandwali, Fazalpur,P.O - Laxmi Nagar, District - East Delhi 110092. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Muzaffarpur, Bihar -842003. 2.Income Tax Officer Ward 1 1 Muzaffarpur And Anothers Muzaffarpur 2.Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna-1, Bihar - 800001. Central RevenueBuilding, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna, Bihar, 800001. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHYORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 05-07-2024 Whether a change in address in the PAN Card wouldautomatically result in a change in the Jurisdictional AssessingOfficer (JAO), is the question raised herein, which has to beconsidered based on the Faceless Assessment (FA) Scheme, invogue. 2. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner andthe learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income TaxDepartment. 3. The petitioner in the present case was doing hisbusiness in Muzaffarpur, Bihar and the address declared was also at Muzaffarpur. The 1[st] Respondent was the JAO of thepetitioner. The petitioner contends; without specifying the actualday, that in the year 2017, the petitioner had changed the addressin his PAN to Delhi, to which location he has shifted hisbusiness. The petitioner has produced Annexure-A/2 which is acommunication down loaded from the website, which, accordingto him, notifies the change in address. The petitioner is said tohave also sought for a change of the JAO from Muzaffarpur toNew Delhi, as is seen from Annexure-A/3. On a notice beingissued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forbrevity ‘Act’), by Annexure-A/4 dated 02.10.2018, theChartered Accountant of the assessee had also sought for transferof JAO from Muzaffarpur to New Delhi. As of now, thepetitioner is issued with notices also in his New Delhi address, asis clear from the various documents produced in the writpetition. The petitioner then was issued with a notice underSection 148A followed with an order and notice under Section148A(d) of the Act, produced as Annexure-A/13 series ofdocuments. The petitioner’s contention is that the 1[st] Respondent,who has issued the notice does not have jurisdiction to assess thepetitioner. 4. On behalf of the Department, a counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been specifically stated that thetransfer of JAO has not been effected and the mere change ofaddress would not facilitate the transfer of JAO. The petitionerhas, in fact, filed his returns with the JAO at Muzaffarpur. As ofnow, the returns are filed on-line and it can be filed fromanywhere in the country. However, when on-line filing is made,of the returns as obtained from the portal of the Department, theJAO is specifically indicated, which should have cautioned thepetitioner and he should have applied for change of JAO withthe Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Department andobtained an order under Section 127 of the Act. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on[2020] 270 Taxman 216 (Madras) [21-01-2020], Abdul AzeezHaroon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax(International Taxation). 6. We will first deal with the decision, relied upon bythe petitioner, of a learned Single Judge of the Madras HighCourt. Therein the petitioner was a Non-Resident Indian (NRI)whose JAO fromthe assessment year 2012-13 was at Shimoga inKarnataka. Prior to 2010-11, the petitioner had his residence atMadurai and he had not earned any income liable to tax in thatperiod. The notice issued under Section 148 was for the 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on[2020] 270 Taxman 216 (Madras) [21-01-2020], Abdul AzeezHaroon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax(International Taxation). 6. We will first deal with the decision, relied upon bythe petitioner, of a learned Single Judge of the Madras HighCourt. Therein the petitioner was a Non-Resident Indian (NRI)whose JAO fromthe assessment year 2012-13 was at Shimoga inKarnataka. Prior to 2010-11, the petitioner had his residence atMadurai and he had not earned any income liable to tax in thatperiod. The notice issued under Section 148 was for the assessment year 2008-09. The petitioner sought for time tocollect the details for filing a return whereas the JAO called forthe details of the number of days when the petitioner wasresident in India during the financial year 2007-08. In the saidsummons, the JAO had also observed that if the petitioner hadbeen an NRI, the jurisdiction would stand transferred to theOfficer, International Taxation, Bangalore and if he had beenresident in India, it would stand transferred to Shimogaconsidering his residence at Shimoga; which is also the addressdisclosed for the purpose of issuance of PAN. The petitioner wasfound to have resided in India for only five months and hencewas a non-resident for the purpose of assessment; but still theassessment was proceeded with by the Officer at Madurai. 7. The finding as available from the decision isextracted from Para 15, 16, 17 and 18, which are as under:- “15. On a combined reading of sections 120, 124 and 127of the following positions emerge (i) jurisdiction vests in anofficer in terms of section 120 of the Act (ii) sections 120(2)and (3) state that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘Board’)will vest authority in an officer for the purpose of assessmentor the Board may, in writing, authorise any Income Taxauthority to issue an order in writing authorizing any otherauthority to perform the functions of assessment. (iii) section124(1) states that where, by virtue of any direction or orderissued under section 120(1) or sub-section 2 of the Act, theassessing authority had been vested with jurisdiction over any area, he shall, within the limits of such area havejurisdiction both in respect of any person carrying onbusiness or profession if such place is located within the areaor where his business or profession is carried on in multiplelocations, where the principal place of business or professionis located, and, in respect of any other person residing withinthe area. (iv) In issuing such orders, the Board or theauthority to whom the power has been delegated by theBoard will take note of other criteria such as (a) territorialarea, (b) persons or classes of persons, (c) incomes or classesof incomes and (d) cases or classes of cases. 16. In the present case, the facts involved are not indispute and the petitioner has been assessed for the years2012-2013 to 2015-2016 as follows: 17. Intimations under section 143(1) of the Act have beenissued by the Central Processing Centre in respect of thereturns filed. The petitioners’ case is that during the financialyear relevant to assessment year 2009-2010 he had shifted hisresidence to Shimoga, Karnataka, carrying on business atShimoga as well and the respondent, vide communicationdated 08.01.2016 admits these facts, after verification ofrecords, to the effect that the petitioner, as on date and sinceAY 2012-2013 is an assessee on the file of the Income taxOfficer at Shimoga. 18. If jurisdiction thus vested with the Income Tax Officerat Shimoga, an alternate assessing authority assuming 17. Intimations under section 143(1) of the Act have beenissued by the Central Processing Centre in respect of thereturns filed. The petitioners’ case is that during the financialyear relevant to assessment year 2009-2010 he had shifted hisresidence to Shimoga, Karnataka, carrying on business atShimoga as well and the respondent, vide communicationdated 08.01.2016 admits these facts, after verification ofrecords, to the effect that the petitioner, as on date and sinceAY 2012-2013 is an assessee on the file of the Income taxOfficer at Shimoga. 18. If jurisdiction thus vested with the Income Tax Officerat Shimoga, an alternate assessing authority assuming jurisdiction of the petitioners’ file can be only by transfer ofthe file and such power of transfer is to be exercised by theDirector General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner,after recording reasons for such transfer and after hearing theassessee concerned. In this case, no order transferring the fileof the petitioner from the jurisdiction of the Income TaxOfficer, Shimoga to the Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax, International Taxation, Madurai, has been producedbefore me.” 8. The contention of existence of concurrentjurisdiction by multiple officers over a particular assessee basedon decisions of other High Courts was found to be not availablein the cited case. 9. The learned Single Judge specifically referred toRule 127 (2) of the Income Tax Rules, which stipulated that theaddresses to which notices/summons/requisitions/order/any othercommunication under the Act may be delivered or transmitted isthe address available; in the PAN at the place of the addressee orthat available in the income tax returns to which communicationrelates or that available in the last income tax return furnished bythe assessee or in the case of the assessee being a company,address of the registered office as available on the website of theMinistry of Corporate Affairs. The notice in the present case hasbeen addressed to the petitioner in his New Delhi address asavailable in the PAN Data Base. Specific reference was made to Prashant Chandra v. CIT, [2016] 387 ITR 88 whereinAllahabad High Court had in a similar case, found thejurisdiction to be absent when the assessee had shifted hisprincipal place of business to New Delhi and requested forchange of his JAO from Lucknow to New Delhi. 10. In Abdul Azeez Haroon (supra), it was specificallynoticed that the Assessing Officer having observed and found thetransfer of jurisdiction, had again asserted jurisdiction atMadurai on the basis of his NRI status while in the earliernotices the stand taken was that it will be transferred either toInternational Taxation at Bangalore or the Assessing Officer atShimoga. 11. We accept the judgment of the learned SingleJudge insofar as the JAO having an obligation to communicatethe factum of change in jurisdiction, if an objection is raised bythe assessee, to the Superior Officer. However, in the presentcase, though Annexure-A/3, a request for transfer of jurisdiction,is said to have been filed before the JAO, there is nothingindicating that the matter was followed up. In fact, the appeal tothe Commissioner as seen in Annexure-A/5, indicates theAssessing Officer to be the 1[st] Respondent. From the appellateorder, it is clear that the petitioner had raised a question of 11. We accept the judgment of the learned SingleJudge insofar as the JAO having an obligation to communicatethe factum of change in jurisdiction, if an objection is raised bythe assessee, to the Superior Officer. However, in the presentcase, though Annexure-A/3, a request for transfer of jurisdiction,is said to have been filed before the JAO, there is nothingindicating that the matter was followed up. In fact, the appeal tothe Commissioner as seen in Annexure-A/5, indicates theAssessing Officer to be the 1[st] Respondent. From the appellateorder, it is clear that the petitioner had raised a question of jurisdiction before the Appellate Authority. However, the appealwas allowed on merits and there was no consideration on thequestion of jurisdiction. There is nothing to indicate that thepetitioner had filed an objection regarding jurisdiction before theJAO, since the appeal was from an order under Section 263 ofthe Act. While the petitioner asserts that he had changed the PANin the year 2017, there is nothing stated as to whether he hadmade a request for such change of jurisdiction of the JAO, whichdefinitely has to be ordered under Section 127. The petitionerdoes not have a contention that he did not receive the noticesissued under Section 148A. The order passed under Section148A(d) indicates that the petitioner when he received the showcause notice first, sought for time and then did not respond. 12. In the above circumstances, we have to find thatthe petitioner had not objected to the jurisdiction and as wenoticed, the petitioner does not have a contention as to anyreturns after 2017 having been filed before an officer at NewDelhi. True, the returns are filed on-line but it indicates the JAO.The change of address in PAN data base only facilitates serviceof notice in the changed address. In the above factualcircumstances, the rigor of Section 124(3) applies squarely onthe petitioner. We also have to notice that as of now the petitioner is faced with Section 148 notice and the assessmentwould be done in a faceless manner, without reference to theJAO i.e. the 1[st] Respondent. In that event there is no prejudicecaused to the petitioner. Even if the JAO at Delhi had issued theorder under Section 148A, the matter would have to beconsidered only under the FA Scheme. We find absolutely noreason to interfere with the show cause notice issued underSection 148 of the Act in the present proceedings. 13. In this context, we also refer to the clarification infrequently asked questions (FAQ), which is issued by theDepartment, available in its portal, based on the Acts/Rules/Notifications/Circulars. The FAQ is extracted hereunder:- “4. I have moved to a different city/state, do I need tochange my AO? Yes. When you shift your permanent address or residentialaddress from one state to another, it is necessary to get yourPAN migrated to the new AO. Although the Income TaxDepartment endeavours to provide taxpayers with allnecessary services online, on rare occasions you may need tocontact your AO. Thus, it is in your interest to get your PANmigrated to the proper jurisdictional AO, so you can easilyreach him/her when the need arises. 6. What should I do to migrate my PAN to a new AO? You need to file an application for migrating your PAN toyour current jurisdictional AO. The process involves: 1. Write an application to your current AO stating the reason for change as address change. reason for change as address change. 2. Write an application to the new AO, requesting him/her to apply to the existing AO for the change. him/her to apply to the existing AO for the change. 3. The current AO has to accept this application. 4. Once approved, the application is forwarded to the Income Tax Commissioner. Income Tax Commissioner. 5. After approval from the Commissioner, the AO is changed. changed. You are required to make a written request to your existing AO for migrating your PAN to the new AO based on your new address.” 6. What should I do to migrate my PAN to a new AO? You need to file an application for migrating your PAN toyour current jurisdictional AO. The process involves: 1. Write an application to your current AO stating the reason for change as address change. reason for change as address change. 2. Write an application to the new AO, requesting him/her to apply to the existing AO for the change. him/her to apply to the existing AO for the change. 3. The current AO has to accept this application. 4. Once approved, the application is forwarded to the Income Tax Commissioner. Income Tax Commissioner. 5. After approval from the Commissioner, the AO is changed. changed. You are required to make a written request to your existing AO for migrating your PAN to the new AO based on your new address.” 14. Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the above extract are relevant, which procedure has to be complied with by thepetitioner for change of jurisdiction. Obviously, the petitionerhas not applied to any A.O. in New Delhi so as to assumejurisdiction in the case of the assessee. Leaving liberty to applyfor such change of jurisdiction, we decline interference to thenotice now issued for the reasons stated above. 15. The writ petition stands dismissed. (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) Sujit/- AFR/NAFRNAFRCAV DATEUploading Date10.07.2024Transmission Date ( Partha Sarthy, J)