All the evidences prove that assessee, long back in 2008, had duly intimated to the department regarding change of address and had duly got the address changed in PAN database and the department also acknowledged the change of address through letter by Income-tax PAN Services Unit. From assessment year 2009-10 onwards, the assessee filed his returns with address of Kolkata and the intimations under section 143(1) were also being generated from Kolkata jurisdiction. Further Form 26AS also contains the address of Kolkata and on none of the documents there is mention of Kanpur address. Therefore, the assessee’s contention before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer of Kanpur Range has wrongly assumed the jurisdiction and has wrongly passed the assessment order, was well justified. Tribunal also observed that the provisions of section 150 do not lie within the purview of a direction issued by the Commissioner (Appeals).(AY. 2015-16)
ACIT v. Deepak Sehgal (2021) 189 ITD 78 (Lucknow)(Trib.)
S. 124 : Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer-Return filed in Kolkata-Proof of change of address in PAN database proved that assessee had changed his address properly and department was already in knowledge of address of assessee at Kolkata-Assessment initiated by Assessing Officer from Kanpur-Notice and assessment is held to be in valid. [S. 142(3), 143(3), 150]