TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised by the assessee before the CIT (A), concerning the disallowance of interest payment to the tune of Rs. 3, 77,803/-, whereas there was no concession given to such an extent by the assessee. It appears that the counsel of the assessee was induced by the CIT (A), in according such consent. It is settled principle of law that notional disallowance of interest is impermissible under law. Further the assessee, had free reserves and a substantial part of loan/advance was not made during the year under consideration. 2. Because on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has manifestly erred in law and is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Commission expenditure, incurred by the assessee, for sum of Rs. 14,58,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S has been effected on such Commission Payment. e. Payment of Commission has been accepted by the same CIT (A) in case of son of the assessee on like facts and analogues circumstances and on similar considerations. f. The persons who have been paid the Commission have not been interrogated or examined. There is no denial of receipt of Commission Income by the said commission agents, who are also taxpayers. g. The purchasers of the commodity may not be aware of the existence of the Commission Agent. To cite an example in multi-level marketing Companies, there is rampant payment of Commission, however the purchaser to the product may not be aware of any such person. Similar is the case here. h. Since payment of Commission to some ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring, the learned AR of the assessee has also raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment passed under section 143(3) due to lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Allahabad. The learned AR has submitted that the jurisdiction of the assessee was transferred from Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Allahabad to JCIT, vide order dated 8.10.2013 passed under section 127 of the Income Tax Act by the CIT. Thereafter, the JCIT after conducting some proceedings of the assessment vide letter dated 22.12.2014 sent back the file to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Allahabad who has completed the assessment. Thus, the learned AR has contended that once the jurisdiction of the assessee was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s by issuing the notice under section 143(2). Thereafter, the case was transferred from Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Allahabad to JCIT under the centralization of jurisdiction vide order dated 8.10.2013 under section 127. The learned DR has pointed out that thereafter the CBDT vide notifications dated 27.10.2014 and 13.11.2014 issued under section 120 of the Income Tax Act assigned jurisdiction to perform functions of an AO to ITOs except in the cases where the ACIT or the JCIT are authorized by the Pr. CIT or the CIT as the case may be to exercise the power and perform the functions of the Assessing Officer. In consequence of this notification of CBDT, reorganizing the jurisdiction of the taxing authority, the JCIT transferred the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Abhishek Jain vs. ITO (2018) 94 taxman.com 355 (Del.) 7. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant record. Both the parties have argued at length on the legal issue raised by the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment under section 143(3). It is pertinent to note that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was undisputedly not raised by the assessee either before the Assessing Officer before the completion of the assessment or even before the CIT(A). It is also a matter of record that the assessee has not raised this issue in the Form No. 36 or even as an additional ground in writing. However, since the issue is purely legal in nature and goes to ....