Jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act must be established through statutory orders, not merely system data, underscoring the necessity for compliance with Section 127 regarding jurisdiction transfers.

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondents.

2. Having regard to the controversy in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on the ground that the respondent Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad has no jurisdiction to issue the notice as the jurisdiction of the petitioner lies with the Assessing Officer, Bhavnagar, in addition to their challenge to the merits of the notice.

5. The brief facts of the case are as under :

5.1. The petitioner filed return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 at Bhavnagar on 28.09.2017 declaring loss of Rs.1,47,53,889/-. The respondent no. 1 Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad issued the impugned notice dated

30.03.2021 calling upon the petitioner to file the return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner without prejudice filed its return in compliance to the said notice on 22.04.2021 and sought for reasons recorded for reopening which were provided by the respondent no. 1 on 10.06.2021.

5.2. The petitioner thereafter filed the preliminary objection on 02.08.2021 challenging the validity of the impugned notice raising the objection that as per provisions of Section 124 of the Act, the business of the petitioner is carried out at Bhavnagar and the impugned notice was issued by the respondent no. 1 at Ahmedabad showing the address of the petitioner at Bhavnagar. It was also pointed out that the impugned notice was followed by the notice under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Act dated 18.06.2021 issued by the respondent no. 1 situated at Ahmedabad though the petitioner has no office, factory or place of business in Ahmedabad or in Ahmedabad District and, therefore, the respondent no. 1 has no jurisdiction or authority to issue the notice for reopening of the assessment for the year under consideration.

5.3. The respondent no. 1 by order dated 28.02.2022 communicated on 01.03.2022 disposed of the preliminary objection of the petitioner by stating that the PAN of the petitioner was in Ahmedabad till 08.11.2019 and thereafter the PAN was in Bhavnagar from 08.11.2019 to 13.10.2020 and from 13.10.2020 onwards the PAN is in Ahmedabad and reopening process like getting approval from the competent authority, issuance of the notice etc. to be done in system only which is PAN based and where the PAN is there, the officer only can initiate reopening proceedings and issue notice under Section 148 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

6. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was transferred from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar in the year 2016 and the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2013-14, Assessment Year 2014-15 and Assessment Year 2015-16 were passed on 20.01.2016, 13.12.2016 and 24.11.2017 respectively by the Income Tax Officer, Bhavnagar. Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar invited attention of the Court of such Assessment Orders placed on record from page 201 to 211 of the paper book. It was, therefore further submitted that there is no order passed under Section 127 of the Act placed on record by the respondent to show that the jurisdi