1992 (10) TMI 109 - AT - Income Tax

Concurrent Jurisdiction Key in Tax Dispute

The Tribunal held that the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the IAC under s. 125A is necessary for the inapplicability of s. 144B, and the mere ... - Issues:1. Whether the order passed by the ITO is barred by limitation due to the concurrent jurisdiction conferred on the IAC under s. 125A.2. Whether s. 144B is applicable in a case where the Dy. Commissioner exercises the powers in pursuance of an order made under s. 125A.3. Whether the assessee waived the right to object to the jurisdiction under s. 144B by submitting to it during the assessment process.4. Whether the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the IAC under s. 125A is a prerequisite for the inapplicability of s. 144B.5. Whether the period of limitation depends on the conferment or exercise of power under s. 125A and its impact on the applicability of s. 144B.6. Whether the disallowance of interest payments and machinery repairs by the Commissioner was justified.Analysis:1. The main issue in this case revolves around the jurisdiction under s. 144B and s. 125A. The assessee argued that since concurrent jurisdiction was conferred on the IAC under s. 125A, the order passed by the ITO was barred by limitation. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of s. 125A and s. 144B to determine whether the jurisdiction under s. 144B is ousted by sub-s. (7) thereof. The Tribunal held that the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the IAC is necessary for the inapplicability of s. 144B, and the mere conferment of powers does not suffice.2. The Tribunal also addressed the argument that the assessee waived the right to object to the jurisdiction under s. 144B by submitting to it during the assessment process. It was held that jurisdiction is a matter of law, and the assessee cannot be said to have waived the right to challenge it. The Tribunal distinguished this issue from cases related to the place of assessment and emphasized that the absence of jurisdiction cannot be waived by the assessee.3. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the period of limitation depends on the conferment or exercise of power under s. 125A and its impact on the applicability of s. 144B. It was held that the period of limitation is determined by the exercise of power, and the conferment alone does not affect the applicability of s. 144B. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the actual exercise of powers to avoid overlapping of orders by different authorities.4. Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the disallowance of interest payments and machinery repairs by the Commissioner. The Tribunal referred to various decisions to support the disallowance of interest payments and directed the restoration of certain grounds related to interest payment and machinery repairs to the Commissioner for further consideration. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes based on these considerations.