TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r) the expiry of the period of one month from the date of service of notice under sub-s. (1) of s. 142 of the Act, no right to question the jurisdiction of an AO would survive. In the present case, notice under s. 142(1) of the Act was issued to the appellant-assessee on 25th Feb., 1993 and the return was to be filed on or before 15th March, 1993, which, in fact, has been filed on 1st March, 1993. No objection to the jurisdiction till 6th Sept., 1994 was raised when the appellant-assessee requested for transfer of the case to Delhi. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the AO was under obligation to refer the question of jurisdiction to the Director General or Chief CIT as per the provisions of s. 124(2) r/w s. 124(4) of the Act, as is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. We are further of the view that it would not make any difference even if at one stage accounts for AY 1992-93 were transferred to New Delhi, which were returned to the AO, Sirsa, because there was no effective transfer of record. Moreover, the substantial business in the financial year 1992-93 was transacted at Sirsa. The argument that the record at one stage was transferred and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, vide intimation dt. 29th March, 1993. It is appropriate to mention that no objection with regard to jurisdiction of the AO was raised. Later on, the case of the appellant-assessee was selected for scrutiny after obtaining prior approval of the Dy. CIT. After issuance of notices to the appellant-assessee from time to time, the AO completed the assessment vide his order dt. 13th March, 1995, determining the income of the appellant-assessee at ₹ 53,16,730 as against the returned loss of ₹ 15,700. On appeal before the CIT(A), one of the grounds raised was that the order of assessment, dt. 13th March, 1995, passed by the AO was liable to be set aside because it was without jurisdiction. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to make fresh assessment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant-assessee. In respect of the legal ground concerning jurisdiction raised by the appellant-assessee, the CIT(A) opined that it did not require any adjudication. The appellant-assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the CIT(A). The argument that the order passed by the AO, Sirsa, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o our finding that assessee had never questioned the jurisdiction of the AO to make the assessment for asst. yr. 1992-93. The ground of appeal relating to the validity of assessment is accordingly dismissed. 3. Mr. Pankaj Jain, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has vehemently argued that under s. 124(4) of the Act the assessee had called in question the jurisdiction of the AO and on that basis the question with regard to jurisdiction should have been determined by the Director General or the Chief CIT or the CIT. According to the learned counsel the Tribunal or the CIT(A) were not competent to decide the question relating to jurisdiction. His further argument is that it is not a case where the area of assessment had already been changed by transferring the case of the appellant-assessee to the new assessee circle, namely, Asstt. CIT-4(3)-cum-New Assessee's Circle, Drum-shape Building, New Delhi. He has maintained that merely because the file was returned back to the Department at Sirsa, would not constitute a ground for assuming jurisdiction once again. 4. Mr. Yogesh Putney, learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue has submitted that this is not a case falling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-s. (1) of s. 142 or sub-s. (2) of s. 115WE or sub-s. (2) of s. 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under sub-s. (1) of s. 142 or under s. 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to s. 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the AO, whichever is earlier. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-s. (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an AO, then the AO shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under sub-s. (2) before the assessment is made. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any direction or order issued under s. 120, every AO shall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act 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-s. (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
