Case Law Details
Jeeri Keerthana Reddy Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee was residing as well as carrying on her profession at Bangalore and thus, assumption of jurisdiction by the AO at Mumbai was invalid. Thus, an order which is passed without jurisdiction is non est in the eyes of law.
Facts- The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny assessment. During the course of the scrutiny, assessee raised an issue about the territorial jurisdiction of AO, namely the Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai on the ground that the assessee was a resident and was carrying on business/profession at Bengaluru, Karnataka. Thus, placing reliance on the provisions of Section 120 r.w.s 124 of the Act, it was claimed that the AO in this case would lack territorial jurisdiction.
Conclusion- Held that it is trite that an order which is passed without jurisdiction (which is an issue which goes to the root of the matter) is non est in the eyes of law. Considering the fact that at the time of assessment, the appellant-assessee was residing and carrying on her profession at Bangalore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO at Mumbai was invalid. The change of address in the records and/or migration of PAN are not strictly relevant in the matter where the jurisdiction is governed by the statutory provisions as contained in Section 120 read with Section 124 of the Act and the notification issued by the Board.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
