TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Assessment order invalid due to lack of jurisdiction under Section 120 of IT Act 1961</h1> <h3>Shri Nasir Ali Versus The Addl. CIT, Range – 23, New Delhi.</h3> Shri Nasir Ali Versus The Addl. CIT, Range – 23, New Delhi. - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:1. Whether the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT), Range-23, New Delhi, had the legal and valid jurisdiction to act as the Assessing Officer (A.O.) in the case of the assessee.2. Whether the assessment order passed by the Addl. CIT, Range-23, New Delhi, is valid in the absence of a jurisdictional order under Section 120(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Whether the absence of an order under Section 127 for the transfer of jurisdiction affects the validity of the assessment order.4. Whether the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, apply to the case, given the jurisdictional challenges raised by the assessee.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Jurisdiction of the Addl. CIT as Assessing OfficerRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act defines an 'Assessing Officer' and includes an Addl. CIT if directed under Section 120(4)(b) by the Board. Section 120 outlines the jurisdiction of income-tax authorities, allowing the Board to issue directions for exercising powers and performing functions by income-tax authorities.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Addl. CIT could function as an Assessing Officer only if jurisdiction was conferred by an order under Section 120(4)(b). In this case, no such order was produced by the Revenue, despite opportunities given.Key evidence and findings: The assessee filed an RTI application seeking jurisdictional orders, but the Revenue's response did not provide the necessary documentation. The Tribunal found no evidence of an order or notification conferring jurisdiction on the Addl. CIT.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal framework and concluded that without a valid jurisdictional order, the Addl. CIT could not act as the Assessing Officer.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the assessment order mentioned an assignment by the Commissioner of Income Tax, but the Tribunal found this insufficient without supporting documentation.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the Addl. CIT lacked jurisdiction, rendering the assessment order illegal and void.2. Absence of Order under Section 127Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 127 of the Income Tax Act requires an order for transferring jurisdiction, with reasons recorded and communicated to the assessee.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of recording and communicating reasons for jurisdictional transfers under Section 127.Key evidence and findings: There was no order under Section 127 transferring the case to the Addl. CIT, Range-23, New Delhi.Application of law to facts: The absence of a Section 127 order further supported the Tribunal's finding of lack of jurisdiction.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal did not find any compelling argument from the Revenue to counter the absence of a Section 127 order.Conclusions: The lack of a Section 127 order contributed to the Tribunal's decision to quash the assessment order.3. Applicability of Section 124(3)Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 124(3) limits the ability to challenge the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer after a certain period, provided the officer has jurisdiction under Section 120.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal determined that Section 124(3) did not apply because the Addl. CIT did not have jurisdiction under Section 120.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found no valid jurisdictional order under Section 120, rendering Section 124(3) inapplicable.Application of law to facts: Without jurisdiction under Section 120, the limitations of Section 124(3) could not be invoked.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on Section 124(3) was rejected due to the lack of jurisdictional authority.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that Section 124(3) did not bar the jurisdictional challenge.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Addl. CIT, Range-23, New Delhi do not have jurisdiction over the case of assessee and since he did not assume the jurisdiction legally and validly, therefore, the impugned assessment order framed by him is vitiated and illegal and without jurisdiction.'Core principles established: An Addl. CIT can act as an Assessing Officer only with a valid jurisdictional order under Section 120(4)(b). The absence of such an order renders the assessment void. Section 127 orders are mandatory for jurisdictional transfers, and Section 124(3) does not apply if jurisdiction under Section 120 is not established.Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal set aside and quashed the assessment order due to the lack of jurisdiction, resulting in the deletion of all additions. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
