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 reassessment notice issued under section 148 by an officer who lacked jurisdiction was valid, and whether the consequential assessment framed on that basis could be sustained.
Analysis: The jurisdiction over the assessee had already stood vested in another assessing unit under the relevant jurisdictional notification, yet the reasons to believe were recorded and notice under section 148 was issued by an officer who was not then vested with jurisdiction. A subsequent transfer of the case did not cure the initial defect, because the notice itself was issued without lawful authority and was therefore non est. The objection was treated as one of inherent jurisdiction, not merely territorial jurisdiction, so the limitation embedded in section 124(3) did not bar the challenge. The assessment order, being founded on an invalid assumption of jurisdiction at the reopening stage, could not survive.
Conclusion: The reassessment notice and the consequential assessment were quashed as invalid for want of jurisdiction, in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment initiated by an officer who lacked jurisdiction at the time of recording reasons and issuing notice is void, and a later transfer of the case does not validate the defective initiation.