Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 624 - HC - Income TaxJurisdiction of the ACIT to pass the order - transfer of case u/s 127 - Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the order of assessment passed by the ACIT, Investigation Circle 8(1), New Delhi were without jurisdiction and therefore void ab initio Held that:- As decided in KK. Loomba Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. [1998 (11) TMI 61 - DELHI High Court] - each year is separate and distinct year and in case the assessee shifts his residence or place of business or work etc. - the Assessing Officer of the place where the assessee has shifted or otherwise, will have jurisdiction and it is not necessary that an order under Section 127 of the Act should be passed This does not mean that the Assessing Officer where the returns of income were earlier filed ceases to have jurisdiction, provided the assessee has residence in his area, place of business, class, income etc. Residence can mean permanent residence as well as current or temporary residence of some permanence - There is no specific finding by the Tribunal with reference to Section 124 of the Act on the question of jurisdiction on the basis of residence, class, income etc. The AO, Delhi was wrong in assuming that as returns for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84 were filed in Delhi, he would alone continue or had exclusive jurisdiction for assessment year 1985-86 onwards as well - ITO, Dimapur wrongly accepted the contention and had erroneously understood the legal provisions - the question of jurisdiction or the place of filing has to be examined each year with reference to provisions of Section 124 of the Act - thus, there was failure on the part of the Assessing Officer, Delhi and ITO, Dimapur in not following the procedure prescribed under Section 124 of the Act, but this would not make the assessment in the first round a nullity - The assessment order passed should have been set aside as was directed by CIT(Appeals) and assessments remitted for a fresh decision Decided in favour of Revenue. Jurisdiction of WTO officer - Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Wealth Tax Officer has no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order Held that:- The assessee did not challenge and object to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at any stage - Reference to the Commissioner/Commissioners was not required as per the Section 124 of the Act - There was waiver and assessee had accepted jurisdiction of the AO, Delhi - Tribunal could not have held to the contrary Decided in favour of Revenue.
|