Jurisdictional objection must be specific, and deliberate non-compliance cannot justify relief from assessment notices.

Section 64(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 operates only where a real dispute exists as to the place of assessment; a bare denial of the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction, without stating the basis for that objection, does not require a reference to the Commissioner. The commentary also explains that section 27 relief depends on sufficient cause for failure to file the return or comply with notices, and a factual finding of no bona fide intention to comply defeats that plea. The ratio emphasises that jurisdictional objections must be specific and that deliberate non-compliance cannot be treated as sufficient cause.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a mere negative objection to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, without stating the grounds on which jurisdiction was denied, raised a question as to the place of assessment requiring reference to the Commissioner under section 64(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; (ii) Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the return and complying with the notice so as to attract section 27 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (i): Whether a mere negative objection to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, without stating the grounds on which jurisdiction was denied, raised a question as to the place of assessment requiring reference to the Commissioner under section 64(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Section 64(3) operates only where a real controversy arises as to the place of assessment, so that rival positions can be considered and determined by the Commissioner. The assessee must do more than assert in general terms that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction; the objection must disclose the basis of the challenge in a manner that identifies the competing place of assessment. A bare denial of jurisdiction, without stating why the officer lacked authority, does not raise the statutory question contemplated by section 64(3), and therefore does not obligate the Income-tax Officer to make a reference before proceeding with the assessment.

Conclusion: No question as to the place of assessment was raised within section 64(3), and the assessee's contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the return and complying with the notice so as to attract section 27 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The finding of the Tribunal was that the assessee had no bona fide intention to file a return and was avoiding compliance on a frivolous plea of want of jurisdiction. On that factual basis, the asserted apprehension that compliance might amount to acceptance of jurisdiction could not amount to sufficient cause. Where the factual finding negatives bona fides and shows deliberate non-compliance, section 27 cannot be invoked to cancel the assessment.

Conclusion: The assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause from filing the return or complying with the notices, and the plea under section 27 failed.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee on both questions, and the assessment stood.

Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdictional objection under section 64(3) must raise a specific, substantive controversy as to the place of assessment, and a deliberate or non-bona fide failure to comply with statutory notices cannot be treated as sufficient cause under section 27.

---