Residence address of assessee mentioned in PAN registration details is vital and decisive to determine territorial jurisdiction of High Court
In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that in faceless assessment, to decide territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, residence address of assessee mentioned in PAN registration details is vital and decisive
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4005 (2024) (05) HC
The assessee had filed a Writ Petition Challenging the assessment order passed for A.Y. 2022-23 by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC) under Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The Revenue raised a Preliminary objection that the petition may not be entertained by the Hon’ble High Court as the assessee filed its return from outside the State of U.P. and the assessment order has been passed by the Faceless Assessment Center.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that it was undisputed that the petitioner’s PAN was mapped to the Income Tax Officer (ITO) within the State of U.P. i.e. the jurisdictional assessing authority of the assessee. With respect to the PAN assigned to the petitioner his address continues to fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the said ITO. However, the petitioner may have filed its return through online mode, disclosing his present address in Rajasthan.
In view of the above fact, the Hon’ble High Court held that the preliminary objection raised that the present petition may not be entertained by this Court as the assessee filed its return from outside the State of U.P. and the assessment order had been passed by the Faceless Assessment Center, was misconceived.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that insofar as the principle of part cause of action is to be applied in these cases, since the assessee continues to be an assessee holding PAN registration within the State of U.P. and insofar as it cannot be disputed by the revenue that for that reason his jurisdictional assessing authority remains the said ITO, it would be hypertechnical and therefore wrong to hold that vital part of cause of action had not arisen inside the State of U.P.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that in the scheme faceless assessment being implemented by the revenue under the Act, the concept of geographical location of the assessing authority had been rendered largely irrelevant for the purpose of determining the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to which such assessing authority may abide.
The Hon’ble High Court further observed that Faceless Assessment Center located at place ‘A’ may therefore remain simultaneously amenable to the writ jurisdiction of different High Courts exercising their territorial jurisdiction over different assessees residing within the territories of different States, whose assessment case may be handled by such Faceless Assessment Center.
The Hon’ble High Court also observed that to determine the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the residence of an assessee in the PAN registration details may remain vital and decisive. Once it is not disputed to the revenue that the petitioner-assessee continues to be registered inside the State of U.P. on its PAN registration, the preliminary objection being raised as to territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted as the Vital part of the cause of action has arisen to the petitioner inside the U.P. upon service of assessment order etc.
On merits, the petitioner submitted that the assessment order exceeded and thus departed from the show cause notice preceding the order. It was submitted that the additions proposed in the notice did not match with the additions made in the assessment order. In fact, the additions exceed the enhancement proposed.
That, a show cause notice was issued proposing variations to be made to the income of the petitioner. The show cause notice was mainly issued for making addition to the income of the assessee on two aspects. Firstly, addition u/s 69C with respect to the substantial payment made in cash to the entities not registered under GST and an addition on salary and wages
It was submitted that however the disallowance was made on the amount of cash purchases which was much higher than the amount mentioned in the show cause.
The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned assessment order and it was directed that the petitioner may treat the adverse findings in the impugned assessment order as points on which he may show cause.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Addition to be only for profit on sales corresponding to bogus purchase bills
- Genuineness of transaction continuing from preceding year can not be disapproved
- ITAT deletes Penalty u/s 270A due to defective notice u/s 274 not specifying penalty
- No addl. evidence to be admitted by CIT(A) unless AO given opportunity of examining
- ICAI notifies dates for CA Foundation & Intermediate Exam September 2024
