2017 (1) TMI 1709 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment passed by an officer not having jurisdiction in the matter - ITAT allowed Assessee's appeal - Revenue sought to argue that objection regarding jurisdiction ought to have been taken at the first instance, i.e., before Assessing Officer and once it was not taken, assessment order cannot be challenged - HELD THAT - Lack of jurisdiction in such case is not a mere irregularity and if that be so, if an authority has no jurisdiction in the matter, same cannot be conferred even by consent of parties. Something which is wholly without jurisdiction, that is nullity in the eyes of law, no principle of law would come to confer any kind of effectiveness to such proceedings so as to have any legal consequences. Hence, the mere fact that objection was not taken before Assessing Officer will not make the order of assessment final as it has been passed by competent authority. In our view Tribunal has rightly upheld the order of CIT(A) - no substantial question of law

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdictional objection raised after assessment order, Effect of lack of jurisdiction on assessment validity, Legal consequences of lack of jurisdiction, Precedents on jurisdiction conferred by consent, Acquiescence and waiver in conferring jurisdiction.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Objection Raised After Assessment Order:
The case involved an appeal challenging an assessment order passed by an officer lacking jurisdiction. The assessee raised the jurisdictional objection before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after the assessment was completed. The objection was rejected on the grounds that it should have been raised before the Assessing Officer initially.

2. Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction on Assessment Validity:
The High Court highlighted that lack of jurisdiction is not a mere irregularity but renders the proceedings null and void in the eyes of the law. The court emphasized that an authority without jurisdiction cannot be conferred such authority even by the consent of the parties involved.

3. Legal Consequences of Lack of Jurisdiction:
Citing legal precedents, the court reiterated that a defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the court to make any decision or decree. The court referred to cases such as United Commercial Bank Limited versus Their Workmen and Kiran Singh versus Chaman Paswan to emphasize that jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or acquiescence.

4. Precedents on Jurisdiction Conferred by Consent:
The judgment also referenced various legal cases to establish that jurisdiction can only be conferred by statute and not by consent or acquiescence. The court cited cases like Benarsi Silk Palace Vs. Commr. of Income Tax and S. Sethuraman Vs. R. Venkataraman to support the principle that acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction.

5. Acquiescence and Waiver in Conferring Jurisdiction:
The court further emphasized that a tribunal of limited jurisdiction cannot derive authority beyond what is granted by statute. The doctrine of nullity comes into play if a tribunal lacks jurisdiction, rendering any decision made by such a tribunal null and void.

6. Final Decision:
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, stating that the objection not being raised before the Assessing Officer does not make the assessment order final. The court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly.