TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order on the ground of legal infirmities as to the territorial jurisdiction as well as the proceedings under section 147/148 as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in complete disregard of facts that there was no challenge to the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction throughout the proceedings." The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while holding that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction for framing assessment and hence the assessment is bad in law, observed as under : "I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned authorised representative on the issue of jurisdiction and also perused both orders of assessment. From the plain reading of these assessment orders, it becomes crystal clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Gupta, chartered accountant was repeatedly questioning it. He restricted himself only to section 124(1)(b) and did not go beyond it to section 124(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which pertained to the disputed jurisdiction, in which it is clearly mentioned that the question shall be determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner of Incometax, etc. as the case may be. The Assessing Officer has totally ignored this section 124(2) and obstinately has dwelt upon section 124(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and thus imposed upon himself the powers of the higher authorities in declaring the returns filed with the Assessing Officer, Delhi, as non est, and himself declaring to be a rightful and legal Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave heard counsels at length. When the assessee objected to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, as per section 124(2) the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter either to the Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner as the case may be. It is also a fact that such reference was not made and the question was not determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner. However, it is an irregularity and not an illegality. On this ground alone the assessment could not have been annulled. We, therefore, restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall decide as to whether he has jurisdiction to assess the assessee herein or not and for this purpose if need be, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
