The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. O R D E R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.899 OF 2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1,3[rd] Floor, P.M.T. Building, A Wing,Shankar Sheth Road, Swargate,Pune-411 037 …Appellant Versus M/s Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd.201, Building No.4, Commerzone, SamratAshok Path, Off Airport Road, Yerwada,Pune-411 006.PAN : AABCV9569KAY 2010-11…Respondent *** Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar a/w Mr. Suyog Bhave & Ms. Rucha Vaidyai/b PDS Legal for the Respondent. *** CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ. DATE : 2 DECEMBER 2022 : O R D E R : [ Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.] .The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (“the Act”) is preferred against the Order dated 9 August2017, passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Pune Bench in IncomeTax Appeal No.177/PUN/2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Chittewan 2Briefly stated the material facts are as under : The assessee fled its return of income for the assessmentyear 2010-11 at Mumbai. The return of the assessee was processedunder Section 143(1) on 17 April 2017. Subsequently, the case wasselected for scrutiny under CASS and since the assessee hadentered into an international transactions during the relevantperiod, reference under Section 92CA(1) was made to TransferPricing Offcer by assessing offcer to determine Arm’s Length Price(ALP) of international transactions with AEs. The TPO vide Orderdated 30 January 2014, made an adjustment of Rs.6,36,13,021/-. 3On the basis of the Order passed by TPO, the assessing offcermade the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Acton 10 February 2014, against which, the assessee fled objectionsbefore the Dispute Resolution Panel on 11 March 2014. The DisputeResolution Panel, however, upheld the fnding of the TPO. 4The assessee, in the meantime, had shifted its registeredoffce from Mumbai to Pune and in that regard, the Registrar ofCompanies, Maharashtra had issued a certifcate of transfer on 13April 2011, which was brought to the notice of the concerned ITO. Arequest was also made to the assessing offcer, Ward-3(1)(3), Mumbai for transferring the jurisdiction to Pune, which prayer wasallowed by virtue of the Order dated 19 December 2014 passed bythe Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai. 5The assessing offcer, however, despite the Order having beenpassed on 19 December 2014, proceeded to pass the fnal Order ofassessment on 24 December 2014. The issue of jurisdiction hasbeen decided by the ITAT by virtue of its Order dated 9 August 2017,which is impugned in the present appeal by the revenue. TheTribunal held that after the Commissioner of Income Tax-3,Mumbai had passed an Order on 19 December 2014, transferringthe assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, the assessingoffcer at Mumbai had no jurisdiction over the fle of the assessee onthe date when the Order of assessment came tobe passed on 24December 2014 by him. The Tribunal rejected the argument of therevenue that the assessing offcer would continue to exercise thejurisdiction in the case of the assessee inasmuch as PAN of theassessee came to be transferred only 29 December 2014. It washeld that the transfer of PAN is consequential to the Order oftransfer of jurisdiction and that it is a PAN, which follows thejurisdiction and not vice versa. Chittewan 6In our view, there is no illegality in the Order dated 9 August2017, which has been passed by the Tribunal. No substantialquestion of law arises. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.) RAJESHDigitally signed byRAJESH VASANTVASANTCHITTEWANCHITTEWANDate: 2022.12.0918:10:26 +0530