TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decision, Declares Assessment Order Void Due to Jurisdiction Breach by Assessing Officer.</h1> <h3>Income-tax Officer, 1 (2) (4), Mumbai Versus Pericles Foods (P.) Ltd.</h3> Income-tax Officer, 1 (2) (4), Mumbai Versus Pericles Foods (P.) Ltd. - [2007] 17 SOT 602 (MUM.) Issues Involved:1. Validity of the assessment order under section 143(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act.2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to change the head of income under limited scrutiny.3. Compliance with procedural requirements under section 143(2) and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act.4. The impact of the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment order on the merits of the case.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the assessment order under section 143(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act:The appeal by the revenue challenges the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order under section 143(3)(i). The CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer's action of changing the head of income from business to other sources during limited scrutiny was beyond his jurisdiction, rendering the assessment order null and void ab initio. The CIT(A) relied on various High Court decisions to support this view, emphasizing that an order passed without jurisdiction is invalid and can be challenged whenever it is enforced or relied upon.2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to change the head of income under limited scrutiny:The Assessing Officer initially issued a notice under section 143(2)(i) to verify the claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance, or relief against rent income. However, he went beyond this limited scope by reclassifying the income from business to other sources and disallowing related expenses. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessing Officer transgressed his powers under section 143(2)(i) and 143(3)(i) by conducting a detailed scrutiny, which was not permissible under the limited scrutiny provisions.3. Compliance with procedural requirements under section 143(2) and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act:The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer should have issued a notice under section 143(2)(ii) for a detailed scrutiny, which he failed to do. The CIT(A) agreed, noting that the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction was limited to the claims specified in the notice under section 143(2)(i). The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the scope of section 143(2)(i) is restricted to verifying inadmissible claims and does not extend to reclassifying income or conducting a full scrutiny.4. The impact of the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment order on the merits of the case:The Tribunal considered whether the assessment order should be set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. However, it concluded that doing so would be improper, as it would effectively allow the Assessing Officer to bypass the procedural limitations and issue a notice under section 143(2)(ii) beyond the prescribed time limits. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) correctly annulled the assessment order based on procedural grounds, and no further judgment on the merits was necessary.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment order. It held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by reclassifying income and conducting a detailed scrutiny under the guise of limited scrutiny, thereby violating the specific provisions of section 143(2)(i) and 143(3)(i). The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and limitations prescribed by the Income-tax Act.
TaxTMI 