Court upholds notice validity despite jurisdiction transfer, deems objections waived.

The court held that the notice dated September 17, 2008, under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not barred by limitation as it fell within the extended timeframe. Additionally, despite the jurisdiction transfer from Jalandhar to Chandigarh, the petitioner's failure to timely object constituted a waiver. The court deemed actions taken at Jalandhar before the transfer valid, dismissing the writ petitions against the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the notice dated September 17, 2008, is barred by limitation and its effect.
2. Whether the notice dated September 17, 2008, is without jurisdiction.
3. What is the effect of the notification dated September 28, 2007, transferring jurisdiction from Jalandhar to Chandigarh.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Re: (i) Whether the notice dated September 17, 2008, is barred by limitation and its effect:

The petitioner argued that the notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation, relying on various judgments. The court, however, held that under the amended provision of section 143(2)(ii) of the Act, the limitation for issuing notice was extended to six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed. Since the return was filed on July 31, 2007, the limitation extended up to September 30, 2008. The notice issued on September 17, 2008, was within this period. The court cited established principles that statutes of limitation are procedural and apply to pending proceedings. The judgments cited by the petitioner did not contradict this principle. Therefore, the court concluded that the notice was not barred by limitation and decided this issue against the assessee.

Re: (ii) Whether the notice dated September 17, 2008, is without jurisdiction:

The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without proper jurisdiction, as the notification dated September 28, 2007, transferred jurisdiction from Jalandhar to Chandigarh. The court noted that despite this notification, the petitioner did not object to the jurisdiction when the order under section 143(1) was passed on February 7, 2008. The petitioner even filed an application under section 154 at Jalandhar. The court emphasized that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and failure to do so constitutes a waiver. The court referred to section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 124(3) of the Act, which support this view. The court also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, which held that objections to territorial jurisdiction are technical and must show prejudice to be considered. Since the petitioner did not raise the jurisdictional objection timely and no prejudice was shown, the court decided this issue against the assessee.

Re: (iii) What is the effect of the notification dated September 28, 2007, transferring jurisdiction from Jalandhar to Chandigarh:

The court held that the notification under section 120 of the Act did transfer jurisdiction to Chandigarh. However, since the actual transfer of records occurred on October 29, 2009, actions taken at Jalandhar prior to this date could not be deemed nullities in the absence of any shown prejudice to the assessee. Therefore, the proceedings at Jalandhar before the transfer were valid.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the notice dated September 17, 2008, was neither barred by limitation nor issued without jurisdiction. The notification transferring jurisdiction did not invalidate prior proceedings at Jalandhar.

---