It Is A PAN Which Follows The Jurisdiction And Not The Jurisdiction Which Follows PAN: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court ruled that the transfer of PAN is a result of the order transferring jurisdiction and that the PAN follows the jurisdiction rather than the other way around.The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes has observed that after the CIT in Mumbai passed an order on December 19, 2014, transferring the assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai...
The Bombay High Court ruled that the transfer of PAN is a result of the order transferring jurisdiction and that the PAN follows the jurisdiction rather than the other way around.
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes has observed that after the CIT in Mumbai passed an order on December 19, 2014, transferring the assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, the AO in Mumbai had no jurisdiction to pass an assessment order.
The assessee/respondent had shifted its registered office from Mumbai to Pune, and in that regard, the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, had issued a certificate of transfer on April 13, 2011, which was brought to the notice of the concerned ITO. A request was also made to the assessing officer, Ward-3(1)(3), Mumbai, for transferring the jurisdiction to Pune, which was allowed by virtue of the order dated December 19, 2014, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai.
The assessing officer, however, despite the order having been passed on December 19, 2014, proceeded to pass the final order of assessment on December 24, 2014.
The issue of jurisdiction has been decided by the ITAT by virtue of its order dated August 9, 2017, which is being challenged by the department. The Tribunal held that after the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 passed an order on December 19, 2014, transferring the assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, the assessing officer in Mumbai had no jurisdiction over the file of the assessee on the date when the order of assessment was passed by him on December 24, 2014.
The Tribunal rejected the argument of the revenue that the assessing officer would continue to exercise jurisdiction in the case of the assessee inasmuch as the PAN of the assessee came to be transferred only on December 29, 2014.
The court upheld the order passed by the ITAT and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: Income Tax Appeal 899 Of 2018
Date: 2.12.2022
Counsel For Appellant: Advocate Suresh Kumar
Counsel For Respondent: Advocate Mihir Naniwadekar