2023 (8) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not quashing the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer after holding that the order passed by the Income-tax officer is not valid on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the matter back for framing the de-nova assessment by a competent officer being ACIT or DCIT and thereby elongating the period of limitation on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not holding that the assessment order, passed is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 and the assessment order is then liable to be annulled on the facts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CBDT [Central Board of Direct Taxes] instruction 1/2011, the ITO [Income Tax Officer] had no jurisdiction to frame the assessment, ought not to have remitted the case; * jurisdictional defect cannot be cured and assessment proceedings are void-ab-initio; * the effect of restoring the matter amounts to giving the revenue a second opportunity to pass an assessment order and the same is impermissible in law. 6. In support of his contentions, Shri. Shankar has placed reliance on following authorities: i. Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Vs. ITO Bhilai ITA No. 158/RPR/2017 (Raipur); ii. Deepak Agro Foods Vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 16 STR 518 (SC). 7. Opposing the appeal, Shri. Aravind, submitted that the objection raised by the assessee i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urisdiction for the first time before the CIT(A). According to Shri. Shankar, the AO lacked inherent jurisdiction. To buttress his argument, he has relied upon Deepak Agro Foods. 12. In Abhishek Jain, the Delhi High Court has held as follows: "As far as territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction are concerned, objection should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and/or before the settlement of issues and not at the subsequent state. Jurisdiction as to the subject matter is distinct and stands on a different footing." (Emphasis Supplied) 13. This court in Fidelity Business Services India (P.) Ltd. has held that the words 'as it thinks fit' confer wide powers upon the ITAT to pass such orders in the subject matter of appeal. 14.....