Sunworld Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO Ward 24 (3), New Delhi
[Citation -2015-LL-0305-3]

Citation 2015-LL-0305-3
Appellant Name Sunworld Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name ITO Ward 24 (3), New Delhi
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/03/2015
Assessment Year 2012-13
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags period of limitation
Bot Summary: The writ petition is directed against the notice dated 24.12.2014 under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(3), New Delhi in respect of Assessment Year 2012-13 on the ground that the same is time barred. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned notice was not time-barred inasmuch as it was in continuation of an earlier W.P.(C) No.1741/2014 Page 1 of 4 notice under Section 143(2) issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Bangalore on 10.09.2013. In our view, this does not save the impugned notice under Section 143(2). The reason for this is that the purported notice dated 10.09.2013 issued under Section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assessing Officer at New Delhi had jurisdiction over the case. The above mentioned case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for A.Y. 2012-13 2013-14 notices u/s. The first notice which was issued by an Officer having jurisdiction was on 24.12.2014. The impugned notice dated 24.12.2014 issued under Section 143(2) of the W.P.(C) No.1741/2014 Page 3 of 4 said Act is barred by time.


$ 12 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 05.03.2015 + W.P.(C) 1741/2015 & CM No.3112/2015 SUNWORLD INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. .... Petitioner versus ITO WARD 24 (3), NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr Amol Sinha, Mr Manoj Dhir and Ms Isha Gupta, Advocates. For Respondents : Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM:- HON BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. writ petition is directed against notice dated 24.12.2014 under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as said Act ) issued by Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(3), New Delhi in respect of Assessment Year 2012-13 on ground that same is time barred. 2. petitioner filed its return on 14.9.2012. end of Financial Year would be 31.3.2013. Six months therefrom would end on 30.09.2013. In other words, notice under Section 143(2) could have been issued on or before 30.09.2013. 3. learned counsel for respondent submitted that impugned notice was not time-barred inasmuch as it was in continuation of earlier W.P.(C) No.1741/2014 Page 1 of 4 notice under Section 143(2) issued by Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Bangalore on 10.09.2013. But, in our view, this does not save impugned notice under Section 143(2). reason for this is that purported notice dated 10.09.2013 issued under Section 143(2) by Assessing Officer at Bangalore was without jurisdiction inasmuch as Assessing Officer at New Delhi had jurisdiction over case. This fact was immediately pointed out by assessee/petitioner by virtue of its letter dated 17.09.2013 where it had clearly indicated that it was regularly filing returns in Delhi and that jurisdiction of case was in Delhi. On this basis, it was requested that said notice issued by Bangalore office be withdrawn. Thereafter, Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1) (1), Bangalore wrote to Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(3), New Delhi on subject of transfer of scrutiny assessment records in case of petitioner. said letter reads as under:- OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-691)(1), No.14/3, 4th Floor, Rastrothana Bhavan (Opp. RBI) Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore-560 001 F.No.TRF/ITO-W-6(1)(1)/2014-15 Dated: 16/12/2014 To Income Tax Officer, Company Ward-2493), Central Revenue Building, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002 Madam/sir, W.P.(C) No.1741/2014 Page 2 of 4 Sub: Transfer of scrutiny assessment records in case of M/s Sunworld Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd-reg. .. above mentioned case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 notices u/s. 143(2) was issued at address available as per PAN data. On verification it is noticed that jurisdiction of vests with your office. Accordingly, case record is transferred herewith for necessary action at your end. Yours faithfully, (LOKESHA) Income-tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore 4. It is evident from aforesaid letter that it is only records of case which were transferred and if case itself had been transferred, same would have to be directed under Section 127 of said Act. No such order of transfer has been made and above letter dated 16.12.2014 is indicative of fact that Bangalore Office of Income Tax Department did not have jurisdiction in this case. 5. That being position, purported notice under Section 143(2) issued on 10.09.2013 was one without jurisdiction and cannot be regarded as valid notice. first notice, therefore, which was issued by Officer having jurisdiction was on 24.12.2014. This was issued clearly beyond period of limitation which has been prescribed, i.e., beyond 30.09.2013 in this case. As such, impugned notice dated 24.12.2014 issued under Section 143(2) of W.P.(C) No.1741/2014 Page 3 of 4 said Act is barred by time. same is quashed. writ petition is allowed as above. No orders as to costs. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MARCH 05, 2015 sv W.P.(C) No.1741/2014 Page 4 of 4 Sunworld Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO Ward 24 (3), New Delhi
Report Error