Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 framed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable when the notice under section 143(2) had not been validly issued within limitation by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
Analysis: The assessment could be valid only if the notice under section 143(2) was issued by an Assessing Officer having jurisdiction within the prescribed time. A notice issued by an officer who was not vested with jurisdiction did not satisfy the statutory requirement under section 2(7A), and the defect was not cured by later proceedings. The assessee was not required to object under section 124(3) where the initial notice itself was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer. The record also did not show any transfer of the case under section 127, and PAN allocation could not substitute for lawful jurisdiction under section 120.
Conclusion: The assessment framed under section 143(3) was invalid and was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the jurisdictional challenge, and the merits of the additions were left undecided.
Ratio Decidendi: An assessment under section 143(3) is void where the foundational notice under section 143(2) is not issued by a jurisdictionally competent Assessing Officer within the prescribed time.