TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Upholds Income Tax Notice, Emphasizes Timely Objections</h1> The High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of timely ... Jurisdiction of AO u/s 124 - transfer of case - Notice for scrutiny assessment u/s 143 (2) - case of the petitioner is that an order under Section 127 was passed on 28.05.2010, whereby the jurisdiction of the petitioner’s case was transferred from the Central Circle 8, New Delhi to Central Circle 33 (1), New Delhi - HELD THAT:- Firstly, we find that the petitioner has described her address falling within the area/locality of “Karol Bagh”, therefore, in terms of restructuring of jurisdiction of income tax in Delhi that w.e.f. 15.11.2014, the jurisdiction over the “Karol Bagh” area lay with the Circle 51 (1). Secondly, the objection has been raised by the petitioner clearly highly belatedly. The purpose of the prescribing the limitation for raising such objection under Section 124 (3) (a), is to ensure that such objections are not timed in such a way as to defeat the right of the revenue to issue notice by letting time pass, and making them time barred. Issues:Jurisdiction of Income Tax assessment, Transfer of case under Section 127, Objection to notice under Section 143(2), Restructuring of jurisdiction, Timeliness of objection under Section 124(3)(a).Jurisdiction of Income Tax assessment:The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, contending that it lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner's case was transferred from Central Circle 8 to Central Circle 33(1) by an order under Section 127. The petitioner filed the return of income in Circle 33(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. The respondent issued a notice for scrutiny under Section 143(2) from Circle 51(1), which the petitioner objected to on jurisdictional grounds.Transfer of case under Section 127:The petitioner's case, along with her husband's, was transferred under Section 127 to Circle C-33(1). The husband's assessment continued in Circle 50(1), covering the area of Pusa Road. The petitioner raised objections to the jurisdiction of the notice received from Circle 51(1).Objection to notice under Section 143(2):The petitioner objected to the notice under Section 143(2) on grounds of jurisdiction, which was rejected by the respondent. The objection was raised belatedly on 20.02.2019, beyond the prescribed period of 30 days from the issuance of the notice. The respondent cited Section 124(3)(a) to argue that the objection was time-barred.Restructuring of jurisdiction:The respondent pointed out that the petitioner's address fell within the area of 'Karol Bagh,' which was under the jurisdiction of Circle 51(1) as per restructuring. The petitioner's objection to jurisdiction was based on the restructuring carried out in 2014, designating Circle 33(1) as Circle 51(1).Timeliness of objection under Section 124(3)(a):The respondent contended that the objection raised by the petitioner was beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 124(3)(a). The objection was considered untimely as it was raised on 28.02.2019, after the notice was issued on 13.08.2018. The court emphasized the importance of timely objections to prevent the revenue's rights from being defeated.The High Court, after hearing the arguments, found no merit in the petitioner's petition challenging the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of timely objections to jurisdictional issues and upholding the restructuring of jurisdiction in Delhi.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
