Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 89 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - AO jurisdiction in issuing notice - only submission of the petitioner is that the impugned notice u/s 148 issued by the respondent No.1 [ITO-2(1)] is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the ITO Ward 2(1) is not the jurisdictional assessing officer for the AY 2017-18 - HELD THAT:- Under sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the Act, 1961 the AO who has been vested with jurisdiction over any area, shall have jurisdiction within the limits of such area. Sub-section (5) of Section 124 starts with a non-obstante clause and provides that every AO shall have all the powers conferred by or under the Act,1961 on an AO in respect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue of the directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120. AO vested with jurisdiction by virtue of direction of subsection (1) and (2) of Section 120 shall have all powers conferred by or under the Act, 1961 on an Assessing Officer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction. As admitted before us that respondent no.1 i.e the ITO-2(1), Moradabad has the territorial jurisdiction over the petitioner, but only objection to the jurisdiction has been raised merely on the ground that on account of pecuniary limit, the proceedings ought to have been initiated by ACIT-2, Moradabad. Once the territorial jurisdiction of respondent no.1 is admitted by the petitioner, there existed no occasion for the Assessing Officer to refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) of Section 124 before the assessment was made. The facts and legal position as discussed above leave no manner of doubt that the respondent no.1 is the Assessing Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the petitioner. Merely because some pecuniary limit has been fixed for purpose of distribution of work between officers, it would not mean that there shall be inherent lack of jurisdiction of respondent no.1. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent no.1 lacked inherent jurisdiction while issuing the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.
|