The Coram of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki S A Menezes of Bombay High Court held that “the transfer of PAN is consequential to the Order of transfer of jurisdiction and that it is a PAN, which follows the jurisdiction and not vice versa”.
Further the Court viewed that there is no illegality in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
The department contested the Order dated 9 August 2017 issued by the Income Tax Tribunal for the A.Y. 2010–11 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act of 1961.
The assessee M/s Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd. filed an income tax return and was subsequently chosen for review through the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection procedure (CASS).
Further, since the assessee had entered into international transactions during the relevant period, reference under Section 92CA(1) was made to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) by Assessing Officer (AO) to determine Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of international transactions with AEs.
On the basis of the Order passed by TPO, the assessing officer made the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act against which, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however, upheld the finding of the TPO.
In the meantime, the assessee shifted its registered office from Mumbai to Pune and in that regard, the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra had issued a certificate of transfer.
A request was also made to the AO for transferring the jurisdiction to Pune, which prayer was allowed by virtue of the Order dated 19 December 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT).
The HC observed the decision of the Tribunal held that after the CIT had passed an transferring the assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, the AO at Mumbai had no jurisdiction over the assessee on the date when the Order of assessment came to be passed on 24 December 2014.
The Tribunal rejected the argument of the revenue that the AO would continue to exercise the jurisdiction in the case of the assessee inasmuch as PAN of the assessee came to be transferred only 29 December 2014.
It was held that the transfer of PAN is consequential to the Order of transfer of jurisdiction and that it is a PAN, which follows the jurisdiction and not vice versa.
Further the bench found that there is no illegality in the order of the tribunal and thus upheld the decision.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
