ORDER 

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 26.10.2016 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Delhi (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’) u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of 30.03.2013 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer/DCIT, Circle 18(4), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2010-11.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/ assessee, filed return of income on 27.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 51,58,328/- after set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,10,184/- for A.Y. 2001-02. Audit report dated 23.09.2010 in Form 3-CEB was filed on 23.09.2010. For the purpose of MAT u/s 115-JB of the Act book profit was returned at Rs. 37,53,675/-. The case was selected for scrutiny.

2.1 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 11.06.2012 was issued. Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 27.08.2012 was issued. Notice u/s. 143(2) dated 03.01.2013 and notices u/s 142(1) dated 05.02.2013 and 19.03.2013 were issued. Shri Indra Dev Narayan, CA filed details objection regarding jurisdiction was raised for the first time in letter dated 18.03.2013.

2.2 As per provisions of Section 124(3)(a) of the Act and the assessee can raise the issue or objection with regard to jurisdiction of Assessing Officer within one month of receipt of the notices which in the instant case expires on 01.10.2011.

2.3 Objections regarding jurisdiction were not raised in letters dated 05.09.2012 and 07.03.2013, therefore, objection with regard to jurisdiction being invalid was not resorted to within the permissible time.

3. On merits, the assessee contended that its jurisdiction lies with DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai is not sustainable due to the fact of shifting of assessee’s company registered office out of Mumbai and voluntary filing of audit report in Form 3-CEB in the Office of ITO, Ward 18(4), Delhi on 30.10.2010, therefore, the objection with regard to jurisdiction was rejected.

3.1 As per auditor’s report in Form-3CEB, the assessee’s international transactions with its Associated Enterprises amounting to Rs. 4,19,66,360/- was stated to be at Arm’s Length as per TNMM (Transactional Net Margin Method). No TP Study report was filed.

3.2 As per questionnaire dated 15.03.2013 issued along with notice u/s 142(1) dated 19.03.2013 it was proposed to benchmark assessee’s international transaction with following comparables i.e. OP/TC Related Services with data of FY 2009-10:

3.3 On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 30.03.2013 made addition of Rs. 53,60,362/- on account of TP adjustment.

4. Against order dated 30.03.2013, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2016.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:

“ Lack of Jurisdiction of Ld. AO passing the Assessment Order for AY 2010-11

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi (Ld. AO) was in grave error in assuming jurisdiction over appellant and in passing the impugned assessment order for assessment year (AY) 2010-11 u/s 143(3) of the Act.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, for AY 2010-11 is without jurisdiction; void ab initio, nullity and non est in law and deserves to be annulled.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, for AY 2010-11, the appellant having its registered office in Mumbai falls under the jurisdiction of DC/ACIT Circle 8(3), Mumbai and e-filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 electronically which was processed u/s 143(1) by DC/ACIT, Mumbai. The appellant has been regularly assessed for earlier years by the jurisdictional AO l.e. AC/DCIT Mumbai. These facts were clearly available in the Dep