Diamond TMT And Procon Private Limited Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court held that PAN jurisdiction in ITBA [Income Tax Business Application] portal is of no consequence in absence of order passed under section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice and order thereof is liable to be quashed.
Facts- By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on the ground that the respondent Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad has no jurisdiction to issue the notice as the jurisdiction of the petitioner lies with the Assessing Officer, Bhavnagar, in addition to their challenge to the merits of the notice.
Conclusion- Held that the respondent has failed to show that as to how the PAN jurisdiction shown in the ITBA system would confer the jurisdiction upon the respondent without there being any order passed under Section 127 of the Act to transfer the case of the petitioner from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad. It is admitted by the respondent Assistant Commissioner, Bhavnagar in its affidavit-in-reply affirmed on 05.08.2025 that due to system shortcoming, the technical migration of the PAN on the system was not effected and the jurisdiction of the assessee continue to reflect under the Ahmedabad Charge. Thus, it is apparent that the respondent no. 1 has assumed the jurisdiction only on the ground of the system shortcomings by not effecting migration of the jurisdiction from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar pursuant to the order dated 25.10.2016 passed under Section 127 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the system cannot prevail over the orders passed under the provisions of the Act and the system cannot be the master of the proceedings in absence of the orders passed under the statute. The respondent Assessing Officer has, thus, become a slave of the system instead of using the system for exercise of the jurisdiction. Therefore without entering into the merits of the matter, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 and the order disposing of the objections are hereby quashed and set aside only on the ground that the respondent no. 1 has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and the order passed by the respondent as admittedly the jurisdiction remains with the Income Tax Officer at Bhavnagar from 25.10.2016 till date. It is also clarified that the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction at Bhavnagar and if time permits he may exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with law.
