TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant is opposed to law, equity and weight of evidence, probabilities facts and circumstances of the case 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order passed by the learned IT) is without jurisdiction, contrary to the instructions No.1/201 dated 31-01-2011, consequently the order is liable to be set aside". 3. The Learned AR of the assessee submitted copy of CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31-01-2011 and it was submitted that these instructions were issued by the Board u/s 119 of the IT Act, 1961 and therefore, these are binding of the AO. Thereafter, he submitted that in the present case, as per the return of income filed by the assessee in pursuance to notice u/s 142 (1) of the Act, the assessee declared tot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that in the present case, a survey was conducted by the assessee and thereafter, in pursuance to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, this return was filed by the assessee and therefore, these instructions of the Board are not applicable in the present case. 4. The facts are not in dispute. As per the return filed by the assessee after survey in compliance to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the income declared by the assessee is Rs. 342.45 lakhs and as per the revised income also, the income declared by the assessee is Rs. 127.50 lakhs and therefore, the income declared by the assessee is much in excess of the limit prescribed by the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31-01-2011 as per which the ITO has no jurisdiction to frame ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke to observe that this restriction on the assessee to raise objection about jurisdiction of the AO is in sub-sec.3 of sec.124 and such objection about jurisdiction is in respect of direction of order issued under subsec.1 and.2 of Sec.120 i.e. regarding the territorial jurisdiction. In the present case, the objection is not regarding territorial jurisdiction but the competence of the ITO to assess the income of the assessee who have declared income in excess of the specified limit and because of that, the jurisdiction lies with ACIT or DCIT and not with ITO. In our considered opinion, in the facts of the present case, the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court cited by the ld. DR of the revenue is not applicable. Regarding this contentio....