Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7, Delhi v. M/S Uv Realtors Pvt. Ltd

$~22 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 228/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI ..... Appellant Through:Mr. Puneet Rai and Ms. AdeebaMujahid and Mr. Karan Pandey,Advocates versus M/S UV REALTORS PVT. LTD...... Respondent Through:None %Date of Decision: 27[th]July, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1.Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated17[th]May, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') inITA 6033/Del/2016 & CO 11/DEL/2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT erred inquashing the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, Kolkatawithout appreciating that the PAN of the assessee-company was under thejurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. He states that the ITAT has erred innot appreciating that the PAN of the Assessee is lying at Kolkata and for the ITA 228/2022 last six years the returns were being processed at Kolkata and during theperiod the assessee had never raised any objection to the jurisdiction. 3.He submits that the ITAT also failed to appreciate that the assesseehad not made any request for change of jurisdiction under Section 127 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) between the Assessment Years2006-07 and 2012-13. 4.However, a perusal of the paper book reveals that the Tribunal hasfound that the acknowledgment receipt of the return of income shows thatthe respondent assessee had been filing its returns since inception i.e.Assessment Year 2005-06 at the address mentioned at New Delhi.It ispertinent to mention that in the Assessment Year 2012-13 when theassessee’s case was selected for scrutiny, the assessee had within a monthfiled its objection to the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata statingthat the assessee’s jurisdiction lies with Assessing Officer, Range-18, NewDelhi. 5.This Court is in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that as theassessee had raised objection within the time provided under Section 124(3)of the Act, the Assessing Officer, if not, satisfied with the correctness of theclaim should have referred the matter for determination before theassessment was made to the PCIT. However, in the present case, theAssessing Officer rejected the objection regarding the jurisdiction andreferred the matter to the PCIT to decide the issue after sixteen months.Further, the PCIT instead of deciding the issue of jurisdiction ordered thatthe issue of transfer of the jurisdiction will be decided after the completionof assessment. ITA 228/2022 Page 2 of 3 6.This Court is of the view that the approach adopted by both theAssessing Officers i.e. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata as well as PCIT, Kolkatawas contrary to the mandate of law, in particular, Section 124(4) of the Act.7.Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question oflaw arises for consideration in the present proceedings.Accordingly, thepresent appeal is dismissed. MANMOHAN, J JULY 27, 2022AS MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J ITA 228/2022