TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), which annulled the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sections 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed its return of income on 30/4/2004, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,86,100/-. The ITO Ward-3, Gurgaon issued a notice under Section 148 on 11/3/2008 without providing reasons for reopening the assessment. The assessee informed that the jurisdiction for the relevant assessment year was Delhi, and the case was transferred to ITO Ward-5(3), New Delhi. The CIT(A) held that the notice issued by ITO Ward-3, Gurgaon was without jurisdiction and quashed the assessment proceedings, declaring them void ab initio. The CIT(A) emphasized that Section 292BB, which came into effect from 1/4/2008, was not applicable retrospectively and did not cover cases of notices issued without jurisdiction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that only the jurisdictional ITO at New Delhi could have issued the notice under Section 148, as per Sections 124 and 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Issue 2: Applicability of Section 292BB of the Income Tax ActThe Tribunal examined whether Section 292BB, which validates notices in certain circumstances, could apply to the present case. Section 292BB deems that any notice under the Act, if the assessee has appeared or cooperated, is valid even if not served properly. However, the Tribunal clarified that Section 292BB pertains to the service of notice and does not confer jurisdiction on an officer who lacks it. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including those from the Allahabad High Court and the Delhi High Court, which held that Section 292BB does not cure the absence of jurisdiction and is applicable only from the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal concluded that Section 292BB could not apply to the assessee's case, as the notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction. Thus, the assessment concluded by ITO Ward-5(3), Delhi was invalid, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the notice issued by ITO Ward-3, Gurgaon was without jurisdiction, and Section 292BB could not apply retrospectively or cure the jurisdictional defect. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
