Harish Kumar Chhabada Vs PCIT (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The assessee, engaged in trading electrical goods as M/s. Sona Agency, filed his return for AY 2012-13 electronically on 17-09-2012 with ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur, declaring total income of ₹2,96,390. His residential address in the PAN database was in Samta Colony, Raipur.
Based on that PAN address, ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, which had jurisdiction over Samta Colony, issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 08-08-2013, which was served on the assessee on 21-08-2013. Further notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 25-08-2014 and 12-12-2014.
A notification dated 15-11-2014 reallocated the territorial wards at Raipur. Following the restructuring, jurisdiction over Samta Colony was transferred to ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur. The latter completed the assessment under Section 143(3) on 18-03-2015, determining total income at ₹28,38,520, including a ₹4,59,219 disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and a ₹20,82,915 addition for undisclosed turnover.
Appeal Before CIT(A) and ITAT
The CIT(A)-I, Raipur partly allowed the assessee’s appeal on 14-07-2016, deleting the Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance and reducing the undisclosed-turnover addition from ₹20,82,915 to ₹11,53,939.
Before the ITAT, the assessee raised an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the validity of the Section 143(2) notice. The ITAT rejected the challenge, holding that the original notice issued by ITO, Ward-1(1) was valid because it was based on the residential address in the PAN database. It further held that the subsequent transfer of jurisdiction to ITO, Ward-2(1) resulted from the 15-11-2014 notification and was valid.
