TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 1998-99. The basic grievance of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer has wrongly made the assessment on protective basis without any jurisdiction. 2. In this case, information was received from DDI (Inv.) that the assessee had taken bogus entries of long-term capital gains through a bank account in Corporation Bank at Karol Bagh, New Delhi amounting to ₹ 1,08,845. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 1998-99 at Jorhat on 30-3-2000, it was not a return filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, he had lost his right to question the jurisdiction after 27-4-2003, i.e., after the period of 30 days allowed to him to file the return as per notice under section 148 of the Act. Thus, the assessee s challenge to the Assessing Officer s jurisdiction was negatived by the CIT (Appeals) and on merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record cogent evidence in support of his claim. Secondly, the interpretation placed by the CIT (Appeals) on the provisions of section 124(3) is misplaced. As per clause (a), the time of one month given to the assessee to question the jurisdiction is to be understood as the time given to him to question that jurisdiction under which he has filed the return under section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one such a delay. However, considering the fact that right from day one, the assessee has been questioning the present Assessing Officer s jurisdiction and not having acquiesced in the proceedings, a lenient view can be taken. The lenient view which we are taking is more because of the fact that the assessee has already been issued a notice under section 148 of the Act by the Jorhat Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
