Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
