2006 (12) TMI 505 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the assessee's appeals on the question of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals).
2. Legality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 127(1) read with section 125(1) of the Income-tax Act and the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) over the wealth-tax cases of the assessee.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of Appeals on Jurisdiction
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeals on the question of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer were maintainable before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). The Revenue argued that the objection to jurisdiction should not be raised for the first time in appeal after the assessment, as it was not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction but rather a situation where both parties believed the officer had jurisdiction. The court examined various judgments, including *Rai Bahadur Seth Teomal v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 9 (SC)* and *Jaipur Udhyog Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 282 (Raj)*, which indicated that objections to jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest opportunity and not after the assessment has been finalized. The court concluded that the assessee, having participated in the assessment proceedings without objection, could not raise the plea of lack of jurisdiction for the first time in appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee on the question of jurisdiction was not maintainable. Thus, question No. (i) was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Issue 2: Legality of the Order u/s 127(1) and Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
Since question No. (i) was answered in favor of the Revenue, question No. (ii) regarding the legality of the order dated December 21, 1978, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 127(1) read with section 125(1) of the Income-tax Act, and the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) over the wealth-tax cases of the assessee, was rendered academic and need not be addressed.

Conclusion:
The reference was disposed of accordingly, with question No. (i) answered in favor of the Revenue, making question No. (ii) academic.