Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The ITAT held that jurisdiction to issue notice under section 143(2) and to frame assessment under section 143(3) lies exclusively with the DCIT/ACIT of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, and not with the ITO, Ward 1(4). The assessment framed by the ITO, Ward 1(4), was therefore without jurisdiction, rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 was quashed. Since the assessment was invalid, all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were declared non est in law. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that any exercise of power imposing financial liability must be within the legally prescribed jurisdiction to be valid.
The ITAT held that jurisdiction to issue notice under section 143(2) and to frame assessment under section 143(3) lies exclusively with the DCIT/ACIT of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, and not with the ITO, Ward 1(4). The assessment framed by the ITO, Ward 1(4), was therefore without jurisdiction, rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 was quashed. Since the assessment was invalid, all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were declared non est in law. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that any exercise of power imposing financial liability must be within the legally prescribed jurisdiction to be valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
