Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
