"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER WTA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 7/Mum/2025 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Kalyan 1st Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan West-421301 Imran Ahmad, 673, Naigaon Part-1, Rizwan Compound Bhiwandi, Bhiwandi Thane-421302 8/Mum/2025 2011-12 9/Mum/2025 2011-12 Irfan Ahmad, 673, Naigaon Part-1, Rizwan Compound Bhiwandi, Bhiwandi Thane-421302 For Assessee : Shri V.K. Jindal (Virtually appeared) For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 13-11-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19-11-2025 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : These are three appeals filed by the Revenue against the order(s) of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11 [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 27-06-2025, pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs.) 2010-11 & 2011- 12. All these wealth tax appeals involve common issue and, were heard together and being disposed-off by way of this consolidated order. Printed from counselvise.com 2 WTA Nos. 7, 8 & 9/Mum/2025 2. For the purposes of present discussion with the consent of both the parties, the appeal in WTA No. 7/Mum/2025 pertaining to AY. 2010-11 was taken as a lead case. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Asst. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh, basis information that the assessee has purchased a plot of land along with four other persons, recorded reasons that the said plot of land does not fall under any of the exceptions provided in Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act (WTA) and thus, falls under the category of assessable wealth under the Wealth Tax Act and has escaped assessment for the AY. 2010-11 and after seeking approval from the competent authority, notice u/s. 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, dt. 30-03- 2017 was issued requiring the assessee to deliver a return in the prescribed form within 30 days from the service of the said notice. There was, however, no compliance by the assessee. Thereafter, notices u/s. 16(4)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act was issued from time to time, there was, however, no compliance to the said notices as well. Thereafter a show cause u/s. 16(5)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act was issued to the assessee as to why his case may not be decided on the basis of material available on record and even to the said show cause, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee nor any return of wealth tax was filed by the assessee. The Asst. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh, thereafter, proceeded and completed the assessment u/s. 16(5)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act on the basis of best judgment assessment and has stated in his order that as per the information available, the assessee along with four other persons have purchased a property, being land bearing Plot No. 2, UPSIDC, Industrial Estate, Amausi, Lucknow, total area 21,135 sq. mtrs. It was been further stated that Shri Imran Ahmad, the assessee had filed IDS, 2016 for the said land, on which no taxes have been paid. It has Printed from counselvise.com 3 WTA Nos. 7, 8 & 9/Mum/2025 been further stated that in the statement of undisclosed income, Fair Market Value as per Rule-3 has been disclosed at Rs. 60,30,00,000/- and the said plot of land does not fall under any of the exceptions, provided in section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, hence, it falls under the category of asset assessable under the Wealth Tax Act and since the assessee is a co- owner of the said plot of land along with four other persons, taking Fair Market Value at Rs. 60,30,00,000/-, the assessee‟s share amounting to Rs. 12,06,00,000/- was determined and assessed wealth of the assessee was thus determined at Rs. 12,06,00,000/- vide order u/s. 17(1)/16(4)(1)/16(5)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CWT(A), Gorakhpur which was later transferred to ld CIT(A) –Pune -11 under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021. As per his grounds of appeal, the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh by stating that he is not his jurisdictional AO. It was submitted that the assessee is residing in the State of Maharashtra and filing the return of income regularly with Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan as his residence is at 673, Naigaon Part-1, Rizwan Compound Bhiwandi, Bhiwandi, Thane. It has been further submitted by the assessee that in the previous four assessment years as well as subsequent assessment years including the assessment year under consideration, the return was filed with ITO, Kalyan only. It was submitted that as per the provisions of Wealth Tax Act, the income tax authorities having jurisdiction over the case shall also be having jurisdiction under the Wealth Tax Act and it was submitted that the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh, does not have any jurisdiction in the matter and, therefore, notice u/s. 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act issued by the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh is bad in law. Further Printed from counselvise.com 4 WTA Nos. 7, 8 & 9/Mum/2025 reliance was placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Varanasi Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Shri Shamim Ahmad (WAT Nos. 01 & 02/VNS/2020, AYs. 2010-11 & 2011-12 dt. 26-08-2021), who also happened to be the co-owner of the said property wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has quashed the notice issued u/s. 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act on account of lack of jurisdiction of the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Rizwan Ahmad, the co-owner of the plot and the brother of the assessee, wherein the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC-Delhi, dt. 15-07-2024, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, has quashed the notice on account of lack of jurisdiction. Further, reliance was also placed on the decision of Shri Irfan Ahmad, who also happened to be the co- owner of the property, wherein the matter has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Ld.CIT(A)-11, Pune, vide order dt. 04-04-2025 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) taking into consideration the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Varanasi in the case of Shri Shamim Ahmad vs. ACIT (supra) as well as the decision of the Ld.CIT(A), Pune in the case of Shri Irfan Ahmad and decision of CIT, NFAC, Delhi in the case of Shri Rizwan Ahmad, held that notice issued u/s. 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act is without jurisdiction as the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle- Azamgarh is not the jurisdictional AO of the assessee and consequently, the assessment order so passed is without jurisdiction and the same was quashed. The findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are contained at paras No. 8 to 10 of the impugned order and the relevant contents thereof read as under: Printed from counselvise.com 5 WTA Nos. 7, 8 & 9/Mum/2025 “9. It is further seen from the PAN history of the appellant that the appellant was earlier being assessed with ITO, Ward-1(2), Kalyan and presently being assessed with ITO, Ward-1(1), Kalyan. The jurisdiction PAN history detail of appellant's PAN as per ITBA is as under: Sr. No. PAN Transfer to Transfer order no. Transfer date 1 ACLPS3431L Ward 1(1), Kalyan 200000940246 02/10/2020 2 ACLPS3431L Ward 1(5), Kalyan 200000083263 21/04/2016 3 ACLPS3431L Ward 1(2), Kalyan 104000887369 03/07/2009 The above discussion suggests that the appellant is being assessed at Kalyan and ACIT, Circle-Azamgarh is not the Jurisdictional AO of the appellant. 10. In view of the above discussion and following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Varanasi Bench in the case of Shri Shamim Ahmed (supra) (brother of the appellant and another co-owner) and the aforesaid decision of my predecessor CIT(A) in the case of Shri Irfan Ahmed(also brother of the appellant and another co-owner), I am of the considered view that the notice issued u/s. 17(1) of W. T. Act is out of jurisdiction as ACIT, Circle-Azamgarh is not the jurisdictional AO of the appellant. Consequently, it is held that the impugned assessment order is also without jurisdiction and hence quashed. The ground no. 1 raised by the appellant is accordingly ALLOWED.” 6. Against the aforesaid order and findings of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. During the course of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh did not have the jurisdiction over the case, completely ignoring various notices issued and served by the AO as can be seen from paras No. 2, 3 and 4 of the assessment order. It was submitted that it is the duty of the assessee to bring out the fact that the jurisdiction of the case lies somewhere else which the assessee failed to do so. It was submitted that the assessee was well aware of the on-going assessment proceedings in view of the fact that the assessment order u/s. 17(1) of the Printed from counselvise.com 6 WTA Nos. 7, 8 & 9/Mum/2025 Wealth Tax Act was passed on 28-12-2017 and appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Gorakhpur was filed within the stipulated time i.e., on 30-01-2018 and not with Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeal), Thane which should have been the correct jurisdictional Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeal), especially in view of the clear findings given by the AO that the notices were served manually as recorded by the AO in the assessment order. It was accordingly submitted that the ld CIT(Appeal) has completely ignored the fact that the assessee never brought the fact before the Azamgarh AO that he was assessed with ITO, Ward-1(1), Kalyan nor he has responded to any of the notices issued, even though he was completely aware of the on-going assessment proceedings. It was accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the AO fresh assessment. 8. Per contra, the Ld.AR submitted that as far as notices issued by the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh are concerned, the assessee was residing at House no. 673, Naigaon, Bhiwandi, Thane and never received those notices and in this regard, the assessee has taken a specific ground of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) that those notices were never served on the assessee. It was accordingly submitted that unless and until the notices are served on the assessee, there is no way the assessee could have responded to those notices and in particular challenging the jurisdiction of the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh and informing him about the jurisdiction of ITO Ward 1(1)-, Kalyan. It was submitted that in any case, Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle- Azamgarh was having the requisite access to department‟s IT system and the PAN number of the assessee and he could have easily verified on the IT system where the jurisdiction of the assessee lies before issuing the notice Printed from counselvise.com 7 WTA Nos. 7, 8 & 9/Mum/2025 to the assessee which he has failed to do so. It was submitted that the Revenue has not disputed that the assessee has been continuously assessed with ITO Ward Kalyan and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly taken cognizance of the same and has quashed the notices and the assessment order for want of requisite jurisdiction. 9. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Varanasi as well as the decision in the cases of other Co-owners, wherein it has been consistently held that the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh does not have jurisdiction over the cases and the jurisdiction lies with the ITO, Ward- 1(1), Kalyan only. It was accordingly submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue therefore be dismissed. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The ld CIT(A) has held that the assessee was earlier assessed with ITO, Ward -1(2), Kalyan and presently been assessed with ITO Ward -1(1), Kalyan and thus, the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh is not the jurisdictional Assessing officer of the assessee and hence, the notice u/s 17(1) issued by him and the consequent assessment order is without jurisdiction and the same has been quashed. The Revenue has assailed the said findings of the ld CIT(A) for the reason that the ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh has issued various notices which were duly served on the assessee, that it was the duty of the assessee to bring out the fact that the jurisdiction of the case lies with ITO Ward Kalyan, that the assessee was well aware of the on-going assessment proceedings in view of the fact that appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Gorakhpur within the stipulated time i.e., on 30-01-2018 Printed from counselvise.com 8 WTA Nos. 7, 8 & 9/Mum/2025 and not with Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeal), Thane which should have been the correct jurisdictional Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeal). In other words, it is the stand of the Revenue that where the assessee is aggrieved with the action of the AO in acquiring jurisdiction, he should have objected to the said action at the first available opportunity and having failed to do so, he cannot be allowed to raise that objection before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that where the assessee was residing at Bhiwani, Thane and never received those notices, there is no way the assessee could have responded to those notices and in particular, challenging the jurisdiction of the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh and informing him about the jurisdiction of ITO Ward 1(1)-, Kalyan. 11. In this regard, we find that though in the assessment order, the AO has talked about issue and service of notice u/s 17(1) dated 30-03-2017 manually and through speed post, it is not clear whether the same has been served on the assessee who was residing at Bhiwandi, Thane or someone else. Once the assessee disputes that he has not been served with the notice, the onus lies with the Revenue authorities to demonstrate through appropriate documentation that the notice has been duly served on the assessee. Merely stating in the assessment order without necessary corroboration doesn‟t discharge the burden cast on the Revenue authorities. We find that the assessee has been consistent in his stand that he has not been served with the notice as can be seen from his grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and even before us, the assessee has maintained the same stand. There is however nothing on record or which has been brought to our notice during the course of hearing that the notices have been duly served on the assessee. Therefore, the contention so raised on behalf of the Revenue that the assessee has failed to inform Printed from counselvise.com 9 WTA Nos. 7, 8 & 9/Mum/2025 the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh about the correct jurisdiction where his tax matters are assessed cannot be accepted. 12. Further, we find merit in the contention advanced by the ld AR that at the time of issuance of notice, the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh was having the requisite access to department‟s IT system and the PAN number of the assessee and he could have easily verified on the IT system where the jurisdiction of the assessee lies before issuing the notice to the assessee and which he has failed to do so. 13. We further find that Ld.CIT(A) has returned a finding that the assessee was earlier assessed with ITO, Ward -1(2), Kalyan and presently been assessed with ITO Ward -1(1), Kalyan after looking at the assessment and PAN history of the assessee. The Revenue has not disputed the said findings of the Ld.CIT(A). 14. We also find that similar issue had come up for consideration before the Coordinate Varanasi Bench in the case of Shri Shamim Ahmad vs. ACIT (Supra) and the findings therein read as under: “Apropos Ground no.1, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that notice issued under section 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is beyond the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commission of Wealth Tax, Range, Azamgarh; that the assessee is a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra and the return of income for the relevant year and the immediately preceding four years and subsequent years were e-filed with the address as 673, Naigaon Part-1, Gaibi Nagar, Bhiwandi, Thane, Maharashtra-421302, having PAN ADSPS0018F; and that therefore, it is evident that the assessee is residing in Maharashtra since long and the correct jurisdiction of the assessee falls with the ITO, Ward-1(1), Kalyan, Maharashtra and not with the ACWT, Azamgarh, U.P. The copy of the assessee's jurisdiction, as downloaded from the Income Tax site, and the ITR Acknowledgements for assessment years 2007-08 to 2015-16 were also furnished before us (APB: 13-21). Printed from counselvise.com 10 WTA Nos. 7, 8 & 9/Mum/2025 4. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has not been able to refute the above contention on behalf of the assessee. 5. It is seen that notice under section 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Range, Azamgarh. However, as available from APB: 13-21, which are the copies of the ITR acknowledgements of the assessee for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2015-16, it is evident that the jurisdiction of the assessee lay with the ITO, Ward 1(1), Kalyan, Maharashtra. 6. Section 8 of the Wealth Tax Act, which concerns Wealth Tax authorities and their jurisdiction, reads as follows: \"Wealth-tax authorities and their jurisdiction. 8. The income-tax authorities specified in section 116 of the Income-tax Act shall be the wealth-tax authorities for the purposes of this Act and every such authority shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of a Wealth-tax authority under this Act in respect of any individual, Hindu undivided family or company, and for this purpose his Jurisdiction under this Act shall be the same as he has under the Income-tax Act by virtue of orders or directions issued under section 120 of that Act (including orders or directions assigning concurrent jurisdiction) or under any other provision of that Act.\" 7. From the above, evidently, it is the Income-tax authorities specified in section 116 of the Income Tax Act, who are Wealth-tax authorities for the purposes of the Wealth Tax Act. As seen above, the jurisdiction of the assessee lay with the ITO, Ward 1(1), Kalyan, Thane in the State of Maharashtra and not with the ACWT, Circle, Azamgarh. Therefore, the notice was issued by an Assessing Officer not holding the jurisdiction over the assessee. That being so, the notice is null and void and it is held to be so. 8. In 'Raza Textiles Ltd. vs. ITO', [1973) 87 ITR 539 (SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a jurisdictional fact cannot be erroneously decided and on the basis thereof, a penalty imposed, by an Assessing Officer. 9. In Indorama Software Solution Ltd. vs. ITO', [2013] 29 taxmann.com 78 (Mumbai), the notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act by an Assessing Officer not having jurisdiction over the matter was held to be illegal and void. 10. In 'PCIT vs. Mohd. Rizwan, Prop. M/s M.R. Garments', in ITA No.100 of 2005, it was held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Allahabad High Court that since the notice issuing authority had क े jurisdiction, the entire subsequent proceedings conducted by the Assessing Officer were illegal. 11.In ITO vs. M/s Arti Securities & Services Ltd., 123 taxmann.com 395 (Lucknow Trib.), it was held by the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal that where notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act had not been issued by an Officer Printed from counselvise.com 11 WTA Nos. 7, 8 & 9/Mum/2025 having jurisdiction over the assessee, the assessment order as well as the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), were bad in law. 12. In view of the above, finding the grievance of the assessee, calling in question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, to be justified, we accept the same. Accordingly, Ground no.1 is accepted. The notice issued under section 17(1) of the W.T. Act is, therefore, quashed as null and void. Consequently. all the proceedings consequent thereupon, including the assessment order as well as the order under appeal, are quashed.” 15. The legal proposition so laid down in the aforesaid case squarely applies in the facts of the present case and rightly followed by the ld CIT(A). We accordingly find that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the factual matrix of the case and has taken into consideration the past and subsequent tax filing as well as the PAN history of the assessee and has rightly held that the Asst.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-Azamgarh does not have jurisdiction over the assessee and, therefore, the notices and the subsequent assessment order have rightly been set aside for want of necessary jurisdiction. In light of the aforesaid discussion and considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we don‟t find any justifiable basis to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is hereby sustained. 16. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. WTA Nos. 8 & 9/Mum/2025 (AY. 2011-12) 17. Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present appeals for the AY. 2011-12 are identical to one as decided by us in WTA No. 7/Mum/2025 for the AY. 2010-11 and similar contentions so raised therein be considered. Considering the submissions so made by both the parties, our findings and directions in WTA No. 7/Mum/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis, to these appeals as well. Hence, the Printed from counselvise.com 12 WTA Nos. 7, 8 & 9/Mum/2025 respective orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are sustained and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 18. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19-11-2025 Sd/- Sd/- [ANIKESH BANERJEE] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 19-11-2025 TNMM Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "