Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 646 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Additional CIT’s jurisdiction - whether assessment order passed by ACIT u/s 143(3) is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction and / or in excess of jurisdiction, on the grounds amongst others that he failed to establish that he possessed legal and valid jurisdiction under the Act to pass the assessment order - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (8) TMI 1446 - ITAT MUMBAI] Exercise of jurisdiction by the Addl. CIT has to be examined on the basis of notification / orders passed under section 120(4)(b), inasmuch as, in 127(1) of the Act. In this context, learned Departmental representative has relied upon certain notifications to justify the validity of the assessment order passed by the Addl. CIT. As far as existence of any order under section 127(1) is concerned, the learned Dlearned Departmental Representative has fairly submitted that no such order exist on record. At least, nothing was brought to our notice in spite of specific query bang raised by the Bench. Therefore, when the issues are to be decided on the basis of facts already available on record and keeping in view the relevant notifications placed on record as well as the decisions cited, there is no necessity of restoring the matter back to the file o the learned Commissioner (Appeals). As far as the contention of the learned Departmental Representative regarding maintainability of the additional ground on the plea that the assessee can only challenge the jurisdiction& issue under section 124(3) of the Act, we do not find any merit in such submissions. A plain reading of section 124 would show that it refers to an order issued under subsection (1) or (2) of section 120, whereas, we are concerned with an order purported to be passed under section 120(4)(b) empowering the Add). CIT to act as an Assessing Officer. Therefore, in our view, the provisions of section 124 are not applicable to the present case. For that reason we do not feel it expedient to deal with the decisions relied upon by the 'earned Departmental Representative in that regard. Thus, in view of the aforesaid the additional ground and supplementary additional grounds are allowed. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we allow the additional grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of assessment framed by the ld Addl. CIT and accordingly quash the assessment so framed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|