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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessment order was without jurisdiction because the case was reassigned to another Assessing Officer after issuance of notice under section 143(2) without an order under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The relevant statutory scheme defined an Assessing Officer under section 2(7A), regulated territorial jurisdiction under section 124, and provided a specific mechanism for transfer of cases under section 127. The return had been scrutinised after notice under section 143(2) had already been issued by the original Assessing Officer. The reassignment was made by an Additional Commissioner, but no valid order under section 127 by the competent authority was shown to have been passed. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that where one authority having concurrent jurisdiction has already seized and exercised the power, another authority cannot complete that same exercise merely on the basis of concurrent jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The reassignment of the case to the ACIT(OSD) was not maintainable, the assessment order was without jurisdiction, and the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an Assessing Officer has already exercised jurisdiction by issuing notice and proceeding with assessment, the case cannot be shifted to another officer having concurrent jurisdiction to complete the same assessment unless a valid transfer is made under section 127 by the competent authority.