Notice U/s 143(2) issued by ITO wd 20(3)(5), who has no territorial jurisdiction over the assessee for AY 2014-15, actual jurisdiction lies with ITO Wd 19(3)(5), an objection to that effect was filed within 30 days of issue of notice. However ITO 20(3)(5) asked for details time to time and assessee provided whatever the ITO asked for and an order was passed U/s 143(3) with an addition of Rs. 1 cr by disallowing LTCG on shares considering it as bogus.  Assessment was completed without removing objection filed by the assessee for jurisdiction.

The assessee is in CIT (A), CIT (A) asked for remand report. ITO’s response to remand report is reproduced as follows:

As per the records, the assessee has E-filed her Return of Income on 31.07.2014 and the same is verified on the E-filing portal and it is seen that the jurisdiction mentioned in the E-return for A.Y 2014-15 was assessed in old ITO Ward-17(1)(3). The said return of Income was processed by CPC. Thereafter, on 29 /O5 /2015, CPC has transferred the rectification rights to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. i.e ITO 20(3)(5), Mumbai. The PAN of the assessee is with ITO Ward-17(1)(3), which has been restructured as ITO 2O(3)(5), Mumba. since 30.12.2014 The copies of the PAN jurisdiction History Details, Copy of acknowledgement of ITR for A.y 2014_15 and copy of WT Return for A.y 2014-15 is enclosed herewith for ready reference. It is very clearly seen from the records that the assessee has been regularly filing her Return of Incomes for both IT and WT, with ITO 2O(3)(5)), Mumbai, without placing any objection on record regarding the territorial jurisdiction or with regards to migration of PAN.

 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has not requested for migration of PAN on the basis of jurisdiction as per the residential address. The assessee had made timely submissions with regards to the scrutiny assessment proceedings with ITO 20(3)(5), Mumbai and the same was completed in accordance with the jurisdictional rights of the assessee being assessed with the ITO 20(3)(5),Mumbai.

Here would like to state that the address of the assessee in PAN record was changed in 2012, return also has new address from AY 13-14 onwards. Since the return was filed online, the asseessee has no option to choose designation of ITO.

There afer the assessee has filed RTI application seeking answer that whether objection letter filed by the assessee is there on record or not. and if yes, any reply to the objection was given to the assessee. In response to RTI application, reply is received affirimg that objection letter is there on record and there is no reply was given by the ITO to the assessee.

Sir, my query is that how strong is this stand based on jurisdiction of the ITO and without removing objection filed by the assessee, the AO has completed assessment. And what are are judicial pronouncement available on this whether favouring assessee or revenue,

Kindly guide.