Cash routed to non-existent firm deemed proceeds of crime; laundered funds and properties attachable, provisional attachments confirmed; two accounts ...
Continuation of Section 73 service-tax proceedings after provider's death (construing s.65(7)) - held to abate; posthumous OIO and recoveries invalida...
The dispute concerns validity of an assessment order issued by an Assessing Officer who lacked jurisdiction due to multiple transfers of PAN jurisdiction; absence of any transfer order under the relevant statutory power prior to assessment meant jurisdiction remained with the original ITO. The tribunal applied the principle that an order by a non jurisdictional Assessing Officer is void ab initio and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the assessee's participation; accordingly the assessment was held void and the appellate order upholding it could not stand, appeal allowed.
The dispute concerns validity of an assessment order issued by an Assessing Officer who lacked jurisdiction due to multiple transfers of PAN jurisdiction; absence of any transfer order under the relevant statutory power prior to assessment meant jurisdiction remained with the original ITO. The tribunal applied the principle that an order by a non jurisdictional Assessing Officer is void ab initio and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the assessee's participation; accordingly the assessment was held void and the appellate order upholding it could not stand, appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.