Commissioner of Income Tax vs Smt. Anjali Dua

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order dt. 13th Aug., 2007, passed in ITA No. 4827/Del/2004 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal''). The case pertains to the asst. yr. 1996-97.

The entire issue is with regard to the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the ''said Act''). The said notice was issued on 28th March, 2003, by the then ITO, Ludhiana. It was the contention of the assessee that the said notice was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the assessee had shifted from Ludhiana to New Delhi in July 1997. The contention on behalf of the Revenue was that the notice u/s 148 of the said Act pertains to the asst. yr. 1996-97 which relates to a period when the assessee was residing at Ludhiana and the assessee had also filed her return at Ludhiana in respect of the said assessment year. It was therefore, contended on behalf of the Revenue that the notice issued u/s 148 of the said Act by the ITO at Ludhiana was not without jurisdiction and was valid. Consequently, the findings to the contrary by the Tribunal have been challenged.

The Tribunal considered the question of jurisdiction with regard to the issuance of the Impugned notice dt. 28th March. 2003. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the notice issued by the AO, Ludhiana, was without jurisdiction on account of the fact that the assessee had placed sufficient material on record to show that as early as, in September, 1997, it was brought to the notice of the authorities at Ludhiana that the assessee had shifted her residence from Ludhiana to New Delhi. The Tribunal referred to the letter dt. 25th March, 1998, which had been issued by the ITO at New Delhi to the CIT, Ludhiana. The Tribunal also referred to the earlier letter dt. 5th Dec., 1997, which had been issued by the ITO, Ludhiana, to the CIT, Range-X, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. In the letter dt. 5th Dec., 1997, the subject is clearly Indicated as--''change of address and jurisdiction of the AO, Ludhiana, to New Delhi''. In the said letter, the ITO, Ludhiana requested his counter-part in Delhi to send their no objection, and, if the transfer requested for was accepted, also send the designation of the AO, who would hold the jurisdiction over the case. In response to this letter, the ITO, New Delhi, conveyed the fact that the CIT, Delhi-X, New Delhi, had no objection to the proposed transfer of records in "the above mentioned cases", which, as indicated in the subject of the letter were as follows : "Transfer of assessment records from Ludhiana to Delhi in the case of C.K. Dua and Anjali Dua". By the letter dt. 25th March, 1998, the ITO at Ludhiana was further requested to transfer the records of the above cases directly to the ITO, Ward No. 21(4), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. These letters clearly Indicate that all the cases and records with regard to the assessments and returns filed in Ludhiana by the assessee were sought to be transferred by the assessee, and the ITOs at Ludhiana and New Delhi had no objection to such transfer.

It is in this background that the Tribunal noted that the request of the assessee to transfer the Jurisdiction was noted in the letter dt. 25th March, 1998, whereby the no objection of CIT, New Delhi, was conveyed to the CIT, Ludhiana. It is also noted that thereafter the assessee submitted returns for the asst. yrs. 1997-98 onwards at New Delhi. It is in these facts and circumstances that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that insofar as, the assessee was concerned, after the said transfer, it is only Revenue authorities at New Delhi who had Jurisdiction over the assessee''s cases and who were competent to issue a notice In terms of Section 148 of the said Act. It may also be pointed that pursuant to the issuance of impugned notice u/s 148 of the said Act on 28th March, 2003, when the notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee in December, 2003, the assessee by her reply dt. 21st Jan., 2004, indicated that her AO was not located in Ludhiana, but was the ITO at New Delhi.

In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion on the basis of the facts available on the record and, we do not find any substantial question of law arising in the present case.

No interference with the impugned order is called for. The appeal is dismissed.