Tribunal rules JCIT lacked authority to transfer case, deems assessment order invalid. ACIT to reassess.

The Tribunal held that the JCIT lacked authority to transfer the case, rendering the assessment order by ITO Ward-2 invalid. The assessment proceedings were returned to ACIT for reassessment. The appeal was partially allowed, setting aside the assessment order by ITO Ward-2 and CIT(A)'s decision, remanding the case for completion of assessment by ACIT.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of JCIT to transfer the case.
2. Validity of the assessment order passed by ITO Ward-2, Rourkela.
3. Compliance with Section 124(3) of the IT Act regarding jurisdictional challenges.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of JCIT to Transfer the Case:
The primary legal ground raised by the assessee was that the JCIT, Rourkela Range, Rourkela did not have the power under Section 127 of the IT Act to transfer the case for the assessment year 2010-2011 from the ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela to the ITO Ward-2, Rourkela. The assessee argued that this transfer was without jurisdiction, rendering the subsequent assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order void ab initio.

2. Validity of the Assessment Order Passed by ITO Ward-2, Rourkela:
The assessee submitted that the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-2, Rourkela was nullity in law due to the lack of jurisdiction of the JCIT to transfer the case. The ld. CIT-DR contended that the assessee did not challenge the jurisdiction within the time frame provided under Section 124(3) of the Act and that all officers within the same range hold concurrent jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that while the JCIT issued the transfer order, the procedural defect occurred when the JCIT, who lacked the power to transfer, moved the case from the ACIT to the ITO Ward-2. This procedural defect was deemed incurable, necessitating the setting aside of the assessment order passed by the ITO Ward-2.

3. Compliance with Section 124(3) of the IT Act Regarding Jurisdictional Challenges:
The ld. CIT-DR argued that the assessee was precluded from challenging the jurisdiction as it was not done within the stipulated period under Section 124(3) of the Act. The Tribunal, however, observed that the JCIT did not have the power to transfer the case, and this fundamental jurisdictional issue could be raised at any stage, as supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Saurav Jain and Ors. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment proceedings initiated by the ACIT, Rourkela Circle, were valid, but the subsequent transfer and completion of the assessment by the ITO Ward-2 were not.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the JCIT, Rourkela Range, did not have the authority to transfer the case from the ACIT, Rourkela Circle, to the ITO Ward-2. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the ITO Ward-2 was set aside due to the procedural defect. The Tribunal restored the assessment proceedings to the file of the ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela, for de novo assessment in accordance with the law.

Result:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessment order passed by the ITO Ward-2, Rourkela, along with the CIT(A)'s order, was set aside. The case was remanded to the ACIT, Rourkela Circle, for completion of the assessment.

Pronouncement:
The order was dictated and pronounced in the open court on 31/05/2022.

---