THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.513 of 2014 DATED:5.8.2014 Between:
The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad.
And G. Pulla Reddy Charitable Trust, Hyderabad.
… Appellant ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A.No.513 of 2014
Judgment : (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 5.4.2013 in relation to the assessment year 1999-2000 on the following suggested questions of law:
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the jurisdiction order passed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, in F.No.DIT(E)/Tech(1)/Jursdn/2004- 05,dt.10.12.2004,assigning jurisdiction over the case of the assessee trust to ADIT (E)-II, Hyderabad, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the DDIT(E)-II, Hyderabad has no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, is not perverse ?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the DDIT(E)-II, Hyderabad, has no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee trust ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in quashing the reopening of assessment by the DDIT (E)-II-Hyderabad in the case of the assessee trust ?
On reading the three questions, it seems to us that the questions relate to the jurisdiction of the Officer, namely DDIT(E)- II, Hyderabad. It was a case of reopening under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and on fact, it was found by the learned Tribunal that a regular assessment was done by the ACIT, Kurnool Range. The proceedings were initiated by t he Kurnool range from 9.12.2004. Thereafter, on the basis of some departmental notification, the above officer assumed jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. The learned Tribunal has dealt with the issue, which is a mixed question of fact and law. We reproduce the undisputed factual position recorded by the learned Tribunal.
“The jurisdiction of the assessee is vested with the JCIT, Kurnool during the relevant assessment years. It is also on record that the issue of notice under Section 148 was by the ACIT, Kurnool Range for A.Ys. 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-
02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee also filed a letter before that authority to treat the returns already filed with Kurnool Range as the returns filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. On that basis, the belated returns are validated and also for filing the returns belatedly for these assessment years there was levy of penalty under Section 272A(2)(e) of the Act. This levy of penalty was also confirmed by the Tribunal. Once the jurisdiction is vested with the Kurnool Range, there cannot be framing of assessment or issue of notice under Section 148 or framing assessment by any other authority than the Kurnool Range.”
In view of the aforesaid factual finding, we are unable to hold otherwise. Further, in this case, the language of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act says “Assessing Officer”. It does not say Officer of any description, as the asessee imputes. Hence, we dismiss this appeal.
The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No costs.
5th August, 2014 K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ pnb SANJAY KUMAR, J