- (1.) By way of this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ], the revenue seeks to question the order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur [ ITAT ] in ITA No. 596/JU/2010 for the assessment year 2003-04 whereby, the ITAT has affirmed the order dated 22.10.2010, as passed in favour of the assessee (respondent herein) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner [ CIT (A) ] in Appeal No. 138/BKN/2009-10 while holding that the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer [ ITO ], Suratgarh to the assessee suffered from want of jurisdiction.
(2.) The relevant background aspects of the matter are that on 05.03.2003, a survey under Section 133-A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the firm M/s Vardhman Mills, said to be proprietorship concern of the respondent-assessee. A notice under Section 143(2) dated 06.04.2004 was issued by the ITO, Suratgarh. In response thereto, the respondent-assessee stated that the ITO at Suratgarh had no jurisdiction in the matter for himself and the family were residing at Chennai for last 25 years and he was filing returns of income with the Income Tax Officer-VII(2), Chennai; and prayed that the entire survey records be transferred to the concerned Income Tax Officer at Chennai. It appears that such proceedings were dropped on 18.10.2005. However, later on, a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 03.04.2006 was issued by the ITO, Suratgarh for the assessment year 2003-04 which was served upon the respondent-assessee on 09.05.2006. The respondent-assessee again submitted that he was not residing at Suratgarh and reiterated the request for transfer of the records to Chennai. The respondentassessee objected to the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act but the objections were rejected by the ITO by his order dated 05.07.2007. It is borne out that about 15 months after initiation of re-assessment proceedings, the ITO, Suratgarh started the proceedings under Section 127 of the Act for transfer of the respondent s case from Chennai to Suratgarh. Meanwhile, the respondent-assessee filed a writ petition in this Court against initiation of re-assessment proceedings. The jurisdiction over the respondent s case was finally transferred on 21.08.2007 from Chennai to Suratgarh; and the ITO, Suratgarh proceeded to complete the assessment in question under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act on 27.11.2007.
(3.) It appears that in the earlier round of proceedings, the CIT (A), by the order dated 18.03.2008, allowed the assessee s appeal against the assessment in question on the ground of jurisdiction. The writ petition filed by the respondent-assessee in this Court on the issue of jurisdiction (CWP No. 6051/2007) was dismissed as infructuous on 08.07.2009. However, the ITAT, by its order dated 10.07.2009, remanded the matter to the CIT (A). Hence, the matter was before the CIT (A) for consideration afresh.;