Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2007 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (12) TMI 476 - HC - Income TaxInterpretation of provisions of s. 124 - Assumption of Jurisdiction with the AO - vests with the Director General or Chief CIT or CIT respectively - No objection with regard to jurisdiction of the AO raised - transferring the case of the appellant-assessee - HELD THAT:- A perusal of sub-s. (3)(b) of s. 124 of the Act shows that the jurisdiction of an AO cannot be called in question by an assessee after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-s. (1) of s. 142 of the Act or after completion of assessment, which was to be earlier. It is further evident that sub-s. (4) of s. 124 has been made subject to the provisions of sub-s. (3) in case an assessee has questioned the jurisdiction of an AO. It is only in those jurisdiction that the AO is to refer the matter for determination to the Director General or the Chief CIT or the CIT as per the provisions of s. 124(2) of the Act. It is, thus, evident that before (sic-after) the expiry of the period of one month from the date of service of notice under sub-s. (1) of s. 142 of the Act, no right to question the jurisdiction of an AO would survive. In the present case, notice under s. 142(1) of the Act was issued to the appellant-assessee on 25th Feb., 1993 and the return was to be filed on or before 15th March, 1993, which, in fact, has been filed on 1st March, 1993. No objection to the jurisdiction till 6th Sept., 1994 was raised when the appellant-assessee requested for transfer of the case to Delhi. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the AO was under obligation to refer the question of jurisdiction to the Director General or Chief CIT as per the provisions of s. 124(2) r/w s. 124(4) of the Act, as is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. We are further of the view that it would not make any difference even if at one stage accounts for AY 1992-93 were transferred to New Delhi, which were returned to the AO, Sirsa, because there was no effective transfer of record. Moreover, the substantial business in the financial year 1992-93 was transacted at Sirsa. The argument that the record at one stage was transferred and, therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO at Sirsa is bad cannot be accepted and we have no hesitation to reject such an argument. Thus, this appeal fails. The questions of law are answered against the appellant-assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
|