TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der under Section 133A (3)(i)(a) dated 24th February, 2015 and a notice dated 27th March, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act pertaining to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were also challenged on the ground that the respondent nos.1 and 2 "had no jurisdiction over the case of the petitioners on and from 15th November, 2014 in view of the Notification dated 22nd October, 2014." The writ petitioner alleged that he had demanded justice by letters dated 12th February, 2015, 29th April, 2015 and 12th May, 2015 but the same had been denied to him. The said writ petition was registered as WP No.655 of 2015 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 14th July, 2015 by the following order: - "In such circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious correspondences to the office of ITO, Ward-46(1), Kolkata by sending letters through speed post, wherein no challenge of jurisdiction was made. But after receiving the notice u/s148 of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, the issue of challenge of jurisdiction were came to their mind to avoid the penal action initiated by the department. You have also submitted a written submission to this office to treat the return for A.Y.2012-13, 2013- 14 & 2014-15 as return in responses to the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 12/05/2015 which is after expiry of 30(thirty) days from the date (27.03.2015) of service of notice, so you have no right to challenge the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer as per section 124(3) of the Act. Moreover, your....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 124(3)(b) of the Act from questioning the authority of the assessing officer who had issued the notices under Section 148 of the Act dated March 27, 2015 to the petitioning assessee on April 29, 2015, the contents of the letters dated April 29, 2015 and the objection as to jurisdiction contained therein had been rightly disregarded by the ITO, Ward-46(1), Kolkata. Accordingly, WP No.1172 of 2015 is dismissed and the department is left free to take appropriate steps against the petitioners in accordance with law " Challenging the aforesaid order dated 23rd February, 2016, the appeal was filed. The question for determination is whether the aforesaid view taken by the learned Trial Court is correct in law ? Evidently the learned Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stion whether the jurisdictional fact has been rightly decided or not is a question that is open for examination by the High Court in an application for a writ of certiorari. If the High Court comes to the conclusion, as the learned single judge has done in this case, that the Income-tax Officer had clutched at the jurisdiction by deciding a jurisdictional fact erroneously, then the assessee was entitled for the writ of certiorari prayed for by him. It is incomprehensible to think that a quasi-judicial authority like the Income-tax Officer can erroneously decide a jurisdictional fact and thereafter proceed to impose a levy on a citizen. In our opinion, the Appellate Bench is wholly wrong in opining that the Income-tax Officer can "decide ei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer, whichever is earlier; [(c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.]" Admittedly, the objection was not raised by the appellants within 30 days even from the date of issuance of notice under Section 148. The objection was raised by a letter dated 29th April, 2015 and the notices under Section 148 were received on 27th March, 2015. It is not also possible to contend that the period of limitation shall commence only from the date of issuance of the notice under Section 148. Notice under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. In an appeal preferred by the revenue, the Division Bench held that:- "In the present case the question before the Income-tax Officer, Rampur, was whether the firm Nathirmal and Sons was non-resident or not. There was material before him on this question. He had jurisdiction to decide the question either way. It cannot be said that the officer assumed jurisdiction by a wrong decision on this question of residence." This finding of the Division Bench did not find favour from Their Lordship of the Apex Court. Their Lordship were of the opinion that a quasi-judicial authority like the Income-tax officer could not assume jurisdiction by deciding a jurisdictional fact wrongly. Here, no question arose of deciding any jurisdictional fact wro....