TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a jurisdictional objection could be raised before the Tribunal notwithstanding the absence or rejection of cross objections; (ii) Whether, in view of Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1961, the Tribunal was bound to consider and decide the question whether reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction.
Issue (i): Whether a jurisdictional objection could be raised before the Tribunal notwithstanding the absence or rejection of cross objections.
Analysis: A jurisdictional challenge goes to the very assumption of authority and may be raised even at a later stage, because a forum cannot acquire jurisdiction by consent or waiver. Such an objection is not excluded merely because cross objections were not filed or were rejected. The nature of the enquiry is confined to whether the defect is latent or patent, and if want of jurisdiction is established, the impugned action cannot stand.
Conclusion: Yes. The jurisdictional objection could be raised before the Tribunal notwithstanding the position regarding cross objections.
Issue (ii): Whether, in view of Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1961, the Tribunal was bound to consider and decide the question whether reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction.
Analysis: Rule 27 permits a respondent to support the order appealed against on grounds decided against him. Read with the principle that a tribunal cannot act without jurisdiction, the Tribunal was required to examine the jurisdictional issue on the material already on record. If lack of jurisdiction were found, the Revenue's appeal would fail even if the order was otherwise against the assessee on merits. The matter therefore required fresh consideration by the Tribunal according to law.
Conclusion: Yes. The Tribunal was bound to hear and decide the jurisdictional controversy.
Final Conclusion: The order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on the jurisdictional issue and the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdictional objection can be raised before the appellate forum even without cross objections, and where such objection is available under the appellate rules, the Tribunal must decide it because absence of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or waiver.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
