In the case of Mrs. Uma Loomba v. CIT (108TAX232) the assessee who carried on business in Amritsar shifted to Delhi. Yet she chose to file her returns at Amritsar. The assessing officer having jurisdiction over the area where the assessee carried on its business issued a notice u/s 148. The assessee challenged the notice in a writ before the Delhi High Court. The Court held that once it had been found that the two petitioners had their business/profession situated in Delhi, the assessing authority having natural jurisdiction over the area would have jurisdiction to assess them, issue notices under section 148 as well though referable to the period when they were assessed or were assessable at Amritsar by virtue of sections 124(1) and 124(5) read with section 120(1). The Court held that no order under section 127 or even 124(2) was called for. Such an interpretation and view of the law satisfies the twin test of (1) the convenience of the assessee, and (2) the exigencies of tax collection. Following the Supreme Court rulings in the cases of Panna Lal Binjraj v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC397 and Baldeo Singh v. CIT AIR 1961SC 736, the Court held that the law does not give a right to the assessee to have his assessment at a place but determines the ITO who is to have power to assess him. Thus, it is incumbent upon an assessee to file his return where his business activities are concentrated or if there is no business with the assessing officer of the area where he resides.
Log In
