TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi. Against draft assessment order, objections were filed by the assessee before Ld.DRP who decided the objections raised by the assessee in terms of its order dated 31.08.2023. Consequently, Ld. ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), Delhi passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Act on 17.10.2023 at a total income of INR 10,05,59,451/- against which the present appeal is filed by the assessee by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. "In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the directions of the respected DRP vide order dated 13-09-2023 and consequent assessment order dated 17-10-2023 are not sustainable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought not to have confirmed the draft assessment order of the AO. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought to have considered the fact that there was an error committed by the Ld. AO in the calculation of built-up space received by the appellant-assessee as per the JDA and Supplementary Agreements. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought to have considered that the AO was not correct in ignoring the fact that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10. The appellant-assessee seeks the leave of Hon'ble Bench to amend, alter, add or delete any ground at the time of hearing." 3. Ld.AR for the assessee in terms of letter dated 07.05.2025 filed during the course of hearing, stated that Ground of Appeal No.9 was taken for the first time before the Tribunal and further raised following additional ground of appeal:- "In the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO who passed the assessment order had no jurisdiction over the assessee and thereby rendering the assessment order is valid." 4. Ld.AR for the assessee requested that the Ground of Appeal No.9 and the additional ground taken in terms of letter dated 07.05.2025 are inter-connected and inter-related and are purely legal ground and requires no verification of facts and therefore, same be admitted for adjudication. 5. On the other hand, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue objected to the admission of the additional ground and stated that this was not taken before the lower authorities and thus, cannot be raised at this stage. 6. Heard the contentions of both the parities and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of additional ground, it is seen that the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order dated 08.05.2024. Ld.AR also drew our attention to the returns filed by the assessee for AYs 2016-17 to 2022-23 which are placed at pages 54 to 60 of the Paper Book wherein in all the returns filed u/s 139, the address of the assessee was of Hyderabad and thus, he prayed that the jurisdiction assumed by Ld. ACIT/DCIT, Circle International Taxation-1(1)(1), Delhi or Ld. ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), Delhi is bad. He also placed reliance on the communication received by the assessee on 21.06.2024 wherein it is stated by the ITO, International Taxation, Hyderabad that the case of the assessee is transferred from ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), Delhi to ITO, International Taxation, Hyderabad on 29.11.2023 based on the address given by the assessee of Hyderabad. Ld.AR accordingly, prayed that the order so passed by Ld. ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), Delhi is without jurisdiction therefore, deserves to be quashed. He prayed accordingly. 10. On the other hand, Ld.CIT DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submits that the assessee has not raised the issue of jurisdiction before the AO or before Ld.DRP therefore, this issue c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was registered by the assessee under assessment stage before the Assessing Officer despite due opportunity of hearing was provided. Section 127 provides the power to transfer of case by various senior authorities from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to them whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction to any other Assessing Officer also subordinate to them. In case, the Assessing Officer from whom the case is transferred to the transferee Assessing Officer are not subordinate to the same authority then such a transfer has to be done after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter and after recording the reason before passing the order. However, if transfer is from Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer situated in the same city then no opportunity is required to be given. Thus, it is mandatory under the law that, if case of an assessee is transferred to one Assessing Officer to another, then order u/s 127 has to be passed and without such order jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the transferee Assessing Officer. On the other hand, Section 124 is applicable only when there is a direction or an order issued u/s.120(1) or 120(2) vesting the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come or nature and type of business. The Act, therefore, recognized multiple or concurrent jurisdictions. Provisions of Section 124 ensure and prevent two assessments by different assessing officers, having or enforcing concurrent jurisdiction. There cannot be and the Act does not envisage two assessments for the same year by different officers. (Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where the person carries on business or profession or the area in which he is residing. Sub-section (3) clearly states that no person can call in question jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer in case of noncompliance and/or after the period stipulated in clauses (a) and (b), which as observed in S. S. Ahluwalia (supra) would negate and reject arguments predicated on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Where an assessee questions jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer within the time limit and in terms of sub-se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....early found that it was not a case of transfer u/s.127 albeit this was a case the assessee has raised an objection stating that ITO, Ward-1(1) should not continue assessment as a petitioner assessee was filing returns with ITO, Ward-21(1) Delhi. Objection as raised were treated made in terms of Section 124(3) despite that there was a delay in non-compliance by the assessee. The ITO, Ward-1(1), NOIDA accepted such a request/prayer of the assessee and has transferred the pending proceedings to the Assessing Officer Ward-58(2) Delhi. It was on these facts; their Lordships held that there was no need to invoke or to follow the proceedings mentioned in Section 127. Further, it was clearly held and observed that, "Section 127 would come into play when the case is to be transferred from Assessing Officer who having jurisdiction to the 3rd officer and not having jurisdiction over an assessee in terms of direction of Board u/s.120 of the Act. Further Section 127 would also apply when the Department wants transfer of the case and in that case Section 120 and Section 124 are not attracted." The aforesaid clarification by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court clearly clinches the issue tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive mandate of Section 127 of the Act. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the DCIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi over the case of the assessee is assigned vide a separate order of centralization dated 16.07.2008. Thus, it is discernible that once the case of the assessee is centralized, then the transfer of the case of the assessee to another AO would not be permissible without a decentralization order or transfer order under Section 127 of the Act as contrary to such a position dehors the underlying objective which the Act seeks to achieve by virtue of powers enshrined under Section 127 of the Act. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders dated 31.12.2017 and 30.09.2021. 29. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending applications, if any. 30. Moreover, it is pertinent to point out that since the impugned orders 31.12.2017 and 30.09.2021 are hereby quashed and set aside on the ground of jurisdictional error, therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the ITAT order dated 09.08.2019 which is impugned in ITA 124/2020 and ITA 8/2021 is also set aside. 31. In light of the foregoing, ITA 124/2020 and ITA 8/2021 are disposed of, alo....