TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 30.11.2006. On 01.08.2007, a notification was issued under Section 120(2), conferring powers upon the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (hereafter "ACIT"). The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (hereafter "DCIT"), who was concededly the Assessing Officer (AO) at that stage, i.e. till 01.08.2007, issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 15.10.2007. While so, some time in August 2008, the ACIT assumed jurisdiction and went to complete the assessment after hearing the parties, by order dated 29.12.2008. During assessment, the objection as to the ACIT's jurisdiction was not articulated. It was also not articulated before the CIT(A). For the first time, the assessee voiced the submission that the ACIT who complet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the submission that notice under Section 143(2) was followed. As far as the assessment itself goes, learned counsel highlighted that the ACIT's jurisdiction could have been challenged, if at all, within the one month of his assuming it, i.e. within one month of August 2008. Since the assessee in this case failed to do so and did not even urge this in the first instance before the CIT(A), it was precluded from doing so. 4. Sh. Salil Kapoor, learned counsel for the assessee urged that this Court should not interfere with the order of the ITAT. He relied upon the ruling in Valvoline Cummins Ltd. v. DCIT 307 ITR 103. Emphasising that even according to the Revenue, upon the ACIT being conferred with jurisdiction, the authority to complete the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er who always had jurisdiction to do so. The question then arises with respect to the validity of the assessment which was completed on 29.12.2008. The assessee urges here that the notification dated 01.08.2007 is under Section 120(2) rather than 120(4)(b). 6. This, to the Court's mind, again has two answers. The first is that the absence of reference to an incorrect provision per se cannot invalidate the authority conferred in the present case under Section 120(2) instead of Section 120(4)(b). Applying that principle, the assessee's argument that the ACIT did not possess jurisdiction cannot be countenanced. It appears that the second reason is more weighty. Section 124(3)(a) enacts a statutory bar as it were to the question of jurisdictio....