Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 173 - HC - Income TaxAssessee is a NRI - filed return for the assessment year 2007-08 on July 31, 2007 at Jalandhar - Notice dated September 17, 2008, was issued under section 143(2) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar, - Thereafter, he was served with a notice along with a questionnaire calling for further information, which was followed by notice dated November 24, 2009, by the Director of Income-tax (International Taxation), Chandigarh. - vide notification dated September 28, 2007, under section 120 of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes authorized the officers specified therein to exercise powers of Assessing Officers and other authorities- contention raised in the writ petition is that - In spite of the said notification, power has been exercised by respondent No. 2, i.e., Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) – Further assessee contended that notice dated September 17, 2008 under section 143(2) is barred by limitation. Held that:- Under section 143(2) of the Act, limitation for issuing notice was 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. In the present case, return was filed on July 31, 2007, and limitation for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act was up to July 31, 2008. However, by virtue of amendment by the Finance Act, 2008, with effect from April 1, 2008, limitation stood extended up to six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, i.e., up to September 30 2008. It is well settled that a statute of limitation is a procedural statute and is applicable to pending proceedings. However, limitation law is prospective as it does not revive an action which may have become time barred on the date of enforcement of the changed law nor the changed law extinguishes a subsequent cause of action Even though the order under section 143(1) of the Act was after notification dated September 28, 2007, under section 120 of the Act, the said order cannot be held to be nullity. It is well settled that objection as to territorial jurisdiction has to be raised at the earliest and is otherwise deemed to have been waived. On the same analogy, notice under section 143(2) cannot be held to be void for want of jurisdiction. Reference may be made not only to section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure but also to section 124(3) of the Act- The Chandigarh authority while issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act, was acting in continuation of the notice already issued by the adjudicating authority. This being the factual position, the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction did not vitiate notice under section 143(2) of the Act. No prejudice is shown to have been caused to the assessee. The effect of notification under section 120 of the Act is to transfer jurisdiction to Chandigarh but in the absence of prejudice to the assessee, proceedings which took place at Jalandhar prior to actual transfer of record, i.e., October 29, 2009, could not be held to be nullity – Against the assessee.
|