The Bombay High Court in the case PCIT Versus M/s Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd observed and has ruled that the transfer of PAN is a result of the order transferring jurisdiction and that the PAN follows the jurisdiction rather than that of the other way around. The division bench comprising of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes in the case observed and has stated that after an order on 19.12.2019 passed by the CIT in Mumbai, wherein transferring of the assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, thus, the AO in Mumbai had no jurisdiction for passing an assessment order. However, the assessee/respondent on 13.04.2011 had shifted of its registered office from Mumbai to Pune, and in that regard, the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, had issued a certificate, which was being brought to the notice of the concerned ITO. Therefore, a request was also being made to the assessing officer, Ward-3(1)(3), Mumbai, for transferring of the jurisdiction to Pune, which was being allowed by virtue of the order dated 19.12.2014, which is being passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. However, the assessing officer despite of the order which is being passed on 19.12.2019, wherein proceeding to pass the final order of assessment on December 24, 2014. In the present case, the issue of direction was being decided by the ITAT by virtue of its order dated 09.08.2017, which is being challenged by the department. It has been decided by the Tribunal that after the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 passed an order on December 19, 2014, wherein transferring the assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, the assessing officer in Mumbai had no jurisdiction over the filing of the assessee on the date when the order of assessment was passed by him on December 24, 2014. Therefore, It has been rejected by the Tribunal that the argument of the revenue the assessing officer would continue to exercise jurisdiction in the case of the assessee inasmuch as the PAN of the assessee came to be transferred only on December 29, 2014. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and has upheld that the order passed by the ITAT and dismissed the appeal.