TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order on merits as well as legally. On legal grounds, the assessee challenged the validity of jurisdiction of the ITO, Latur under section 127 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) passed an order considering the legal grounds of the assessee and upheld the ground taken by the assessee on legal issue. But on merits, the issue was kept for academic purpose. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed an appeal before us by challenging the legal ground. 3. The Ld. DR in argument on grounds 2 to 7 stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the provisions of section 46A of the Income-tax rules, 1963 (in short, 'the Rule'); so the Ld.AO has not been provided the reasonable opportunity for the submission his evidence. In relation to ground no.1, the Ld. DR argued that there is no requirement for order under section 127 of the Act, as the transfer merely because the file moves between officers who already share the same territorial or functional jurisdiction. The immunity was granted U/s 127(3) of the Act. Further, he argued that the assessee has not made any objection regarding the applicability of section 124 of the Act within one month before the Ld.AO. So, the Ld. DR prayed that the order passed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not made out a case before the Ld.CIT (Appeals) to indicate that he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence which he was called upon to produce and which was sought to be produced before the Ld CIT(A); c. The appellant has not made out a cave before the Ld CIT(A) to prove that he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the assessing officer any evidence which was relevant to any of the grounds of appeal; and d. The assessee has not made out a case or has alleged before the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) that the assessing officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. While admitting additional evidence filed by the appellant assessee. v. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and is law the learned Commissioner of Income tax grossly erred in admitting additional evidence. Under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and while doing so failed to appreciate that one of the conditions laid down therein was fulfilled so as to lead him to admit such evidence; vi. "Whether on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, where case records or PANs are reassigned within a range without requiring a specific transfer order, particularly when a jurisdictional order under Section 120 or other directives already assigns authority to the relevant officer. Existence of a Jurisdictional Order The Grounds of Appeal explicitly state that the transfer was made "in light of a jurisdictional order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax." Section 120 of the Income Tax Act allows the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) or Commissioners to assign jurisdiction to Assessing Officers. A jurisdictional order under Section 120 could have allocated cases, including the assessee's, to ITO Ward- 1, Latur, thereby negating the need for a separate Section 127 order. The CIT(A) failed to investigate the existence or implications of such an order, instead focusing solely on the absence of a Section 127 order. This oversight undermines the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment. Assessee's Failure to Object to Jurisdiction Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act implies that an assessee must object to the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer at the earliest opportu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 127 order, especially in light of a jurisdictional order by the Principal Commissioner. Moreover, the assessee's failure to object to jurisdiction before the AO, as required under Section 124, precludes them from challenging it at the appellate stage. The ITAT should restore the assessment order, considering the administrative validity of the transfer and the assessee's waiver." 4. The Ld.AR argued and relied on the impugned appeal order of the Ld.CIT(A). The relevant paragraph 5 is extracted below:- 5.1. During the appellate proceedings the appellant also filed an application under Rule 46A of the Act to admit additional evidences. The additional ground of the appeal as well as additional evidences were admitted by the then CIT(A)-2 Aurangabad. A remand report was called from the AO vide letter No. ABD/CIT(A)-2/remand report/2017-18/1182 dated 22.08.2017. The AO, the DCIT, Latur Circle submitted a remand report vide letter no. LTR/DCIT/Cir/scr. rep/SSD/2017-18 dated 04.01.2018. A copy of the remand report was sent to the appellant for comments/rejoinder. The appellant vide letter dated 08.08.2017 submitted comments/rejoinder to the remand report. 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue No. 2: Order passed u/s. 127 assigning 'the case of assessee to the ITO Ward-1, Latur. It is seen from the records available with this office that there was no order passed u/s. 127 assigning the case of assessee to the ITO Ward 1, Latur. Thus decision may be taken on merit on this point..." 5.3 The comments/rejoinder of the appellant of remand report of the AO are also reproduced as under : "...5. Territorial Jurisdiction pertaining to the case of Osmanabad District: a) As per section 124 (1) of the Act, Assessing Officer shall be have jurisdiction i) In respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situate ii) In respect of any other person residing within the area. b) In present case Assessee is running his business At Post - Dhoki, District - Osmanabad it means there is Jurisdiction of ITO Ward 3 up to November 2014. c) Thereafter all the cases of Osmanabad district transferred from ITO ward 3 to Osmanabad ward ITO, as new Osmanabad ward ITO charge is newly created in November 2014. d) It means on the said Assessee from November 2014 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and finding of the AO in the assessment order and remand report and the submission made by the appellant along with the rejoinder/ comments to the remand report have been considered. 5.4.1 The facts of the case of the appellant, are that for A.Y. 2012-13, the appellant filed return of income on 01.12.2012. The ACIT, Circle, Nanded issued notice u/s. 143(2) on 14.08.2013. On creation of the charge of ACIT, Circle, Latur the case was transferred to ACIT, Latur on 15.11.2014. As the income of the assessee was below 15 lacs, the case was transferred to ITO Ward-1, Latur on 24.11.2014. The order u/s. 143(3) for A.Y. 2012-13 was passed by ITO Ward-1, Latur on 30.03.2015. 5.4.2 In the rejoinder the appellant submitted that the appellant was running business at Dhoki, District Osmanabad, therefore, the jurisdiction was with ITO Ward-3 upto November 2014. After creation of charge of ITO Ward, Osmanabad in November 2014, the cases of Osmanabad District were transferred from ITO Ward-3 to Osmanabad Ward. Thus, from November 2014 onwards, the jurisdiction over the appellant was with ITO Ward-Osmanabad. The appellant submitted that order u/s. 127 was mandatory to have jurisdic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....124. In this case the ITAT, Raipur has held as under. ".... Also, there is substance in the claim of the assessee that as it is neither the case of the revenue nor a fact borne from record that the ITO, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur had got vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee pursuant to any transfer of jurisdiction over his case from the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur under section 127, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by him would also not be justified on the said count. Admittedly, no order under section 127 evidencing any transfer of the case of the assessee from the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur i.e. the jurisdictional Officer to the ITO, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur is available on the assessment record. On the contrary, though the jurisdictional history of the assessee reveals that his case on 27-9-2013 was transferred from the ITO, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur to the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, but as to on what basis the jurisdiction over his case which since last many years had remained vested with the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur (as evidenced on a perusal of the income tax returns of the preceding years) on the first occasion was transferred to the ITO, Ward-1(2), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e framework of concurrent jurisdiction. According to the Ld. DR, this constitutes an internal reallocation rather than a change of jurisdiction necessitating prior notice under Section 127(1) or 127(2). This provision, it was argued, is intended to facilitate administrative efficiency, particularly in large metropolitan areas or specialized units. In relation to the applicability of Section 124, the Ld. DR placed complete reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Abhishek Jain v. Income-tax Officer [(2018) 405 ITR 1 (Del)], wherein the Hon'ble Court dismissed the assessee's appeal on the ground that no objection to jurisdiction had been filed within the prescribed period of one month before the Assessing Officer. Further, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [[2023] 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC)], wherein it was held that where the High Court had set aside a notice issued under Section 143(2) on the ground that the jurisdictional officer had not adjudicated upon the returns owing to a change in jurisdiction after the returns were filed, such an ....