Icome Tax Return Filing

Under section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Assessing Officer has been vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of such area, he would have jurisdiction in respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situated within the area. Where the business or profession is carried on in more places than one, he would have jurisdiction if the principal place of business or profession is situated within the area. This section refers to the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Assessing Officer. It is important to note the sense in which the word ‘jurisdiction’ is used in this context. The distinction between want of inherent jurisdiction, i.e. inherent incompetency, on the one hand, and irregular exercise and assumption of jurisdiction on the other hand, is well settled. A party may waive objection to irregular exercise or assumption of jurisdiction; but there can be no question of waiver where there is absence of inherent jurisdiction because in such a case the assessment order must be treated as a nullity. Under the Act, if an order is made by an Assessing Officer other than the one entitled to exercise jurisdiction, it may account merely to irregular exercise or assumption of jurisdiction. If the assessee has not objected within the time prescribed by sub-section (3), he would be deemed to have waived his objection and the order would be valid and effective. If an administrative order transferring a case from one Assessing Officer to another is set aside by the Court, that would not necessarily invalidate all action taken, before the Court’s decision, by the Assessing Officer to whom the case was transferred. Understanding ‘principal place of business’ What constitutes “principal place of business or profession” has been considered by the Guwahati High Court in C.I.T. v. Ganga Bani Mercantile and Finance P. Ltd. (293 I.T.R. 441). The facts in this case were that the company was registered with the Registrar of Companies at Kolkata. There was a search in the G group companies, resulting in seizure of a substantial number of pass books, cheque books and other documents relating to a large number of bank accounts, investments in different names, organisations and financial institutions. On the basis of the statement on oath of G that some of the investments were made by the assessee in support of which he filed a confirmatory letter, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 158-BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On considering the challenge made by the assessee to the validity of the proceedings initiated under section 158-BD, the Assessing Officer found that no cogent evidence or reasons had been put forward to show that the assessee would be outside the jurisdiction of the AO at Guwahati. The Assistant Commissioner at Guwahati held that the assessee failed to explain its source of investment amounting to Rs 1,26,75,554 and assessed the assessee to income-tax amounting to Rs 1,40,17,200 under section 158-BD. The Tribunal accepted the challenge made on behalf of the assessee, holding that as the assessee was registered with the Registrar of Companies at Kolkata, the jurisdiction in respect of the assessee would lie only with the income-tax authorities at Kolkata. Since no order under section 127 had been passed by the income-tax authorities at Kolkata transferring the case to Guwahati, neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner at Guwahati would have jurisdiction in respect of the assessee. Question of jurisdiction The High Court held that even though the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was general in nature, yet the representative of the assessee argued the question of jurisdiction before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer deliberated upon the question and eventually proceeded to assess the tax liability of the assessee, rejecting the plea of lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the question of jurisdiction was very much an issue before the Assessing Officer. When an objection regarding lack of jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer was raised, the Assessing Officer ought to have made a reference to the higher authorities for a decision as provided under section 124(2). The Assessing Officer could not take a view that no adjudiciable jurisdictional issue was involved in the case. Recourse to the provisions of section 124(2) would have been the only course left with the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal had set aside the findings of the authorities below merely because the registered office of the assessee was located at Kolkata. From the documents, it was not discernible as to whether the assessee carried on his business in more places than one. The reasons cited by the Tribunal in declaring that the authorities at Guwahati would have no jurisdiction was not correct as the location of the registered office of the assessee could be of no consequence, without any other relevant material to decide on the principal place of business of the assessee. If the assessee did not carry on any business activities within the jurisdiction of the income-tax authorities at Kolkata and instead conducted all its business under the jurisdiction of the income-tax authorities at Guwahati, the principal place of business of the assessee could very well be at Guwahati. Time-bound objection In conclusion, it must be noted that an objection as to the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction should be raised by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and before the expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (3). The objection cannot be raised for the first time in appeal against the assessment after the assessment has been made, or for the first time in penalty proceedings. If the question as to jurisdiction has been raised in time before the Assessing Officer and has been decided against the assessee by the Director-General or the Commissioner or by the Board, the assessee cannot raise the objection again in an appeal before the C.I.T. (A) because section 246 does not provide for an appeal on the question of jurisdiction. Further, the C.I.T. (A), under the scheme of the Act, cannot sit in appeal over the decision of those authorities. H.P. Ranina The author, a Mumbai-based advocate specialising in tax laws

Answers to your queries:

1.You have to fill ITR 2.


2.For calculating capital gain or loss,selling price excluding STT and brokerage is to be taken into consideration.


3.As you have no tax liability ,it is not mandatory to file your return.


4.There is no need to follow any particular jurisdiction .You can file from Anywhere.

hi all

i am in australia since feburary and i am a student here.I have fallowing quries

1) Being a student i am suppose to claim all my tax for the 1st time i file my returns but as i m employed since last 2 months then what can i do for it?

2) My income is not more than $6000, so i suppose that i dont have to file return and if i dont have to then will i be able to claim my all tax as a student a year later? 

ITR Form for HBA exemption

ITR Form for HBA Exemption

I have worked for a company for 03/07 to 09/07. Later joined in second company from 10/07 to till date.

 

Now while filling the returns , how to show the break up in ITR forms.

breakup is not required at all

u have to show the gross salary , i.e. sum of the salary received from both the employees

I am a retired pension holder women.My income is from Pension, Bank interest and I sold a property Capital Gain 2.5 . I baught bond to save tax. I what form I have to use to submit my return

Originally posted by :Darshu
"	Answers to your queries:1.You have to fill ITR 2.2.For calculating capital gain or loss,selling price excluding STT and brokerage is to be taken into consideration.3.As you have no tax liability ,it is not mandatory to file your return.4.There is no need to follow any particular jurisdiction .You can file from Anywhere.	"

if there is capital loss then in order tocarry forward that loss, one needs to file the loss return mandatorily within due date, otherwise that capital loss can not be carried forward for the next financial years to set off.

just check your answer for question no. 3 that no tax liability then no return.

i want to know about the section 124 of the income tax act. Please provide me the sufficient information in this regard.

 

 

thanks.

 

nagendra solanki

my name is munna singh my pan no is ANVPM9016C  i lost my pan card latter which word i submited my return.

 

 

 

Originally posted by :PARVEEN GOYAL
"		"

 

we filed the IT Return on due date but in return we have not  comsidered the business loss , can i file the revised return  with business loss & can i carried forward the such business loss?