Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (12) TMI 349 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT).
2. Jurisdiction of the Addl. CIT to pass assessment orders under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Requirement of an order under section 120(4)(b) or section 127 for transferring jurisdiction.
4. Admission of additional grounds challenging jurisdiction.
5. Consequences of quashing the assessment orders on penalties levied under section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Orders:
The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the assessment orders passed by the Addl. CIT for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06. The assessee contended that the assessment orders dated 31-12-2007 were "bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction" as the Addl. CIT did not possess the legal and valid jurisdiction to pass the assessment orders. The Tribunal examined this contention in detail, focusing on whether the Addl. CIT was properly authorized to act as an Assessing Officer (AO) under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act.

2. Jurisdiction of the Addl. CIT:
The Tribunal noted that under section 2(7A) of the Act, an AO includes an Addl. CIT only if directed under section 120(4)(b) to exercise or perform the powers and functions of an AO. The Tribunal found that no such direction or order had been issued in this case. The learned CIT Departmental Representative conceded that there were no orders or notifications under section 127 or section 120(4)(b) conferring jurisdiction on the Addl. CIT. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Addl. CIT did not possess the jurisdiction to pass the assessment orders, rendering them illegal and without jurisdiction.

3. Requirement of an Order under Section 120(4)(b) or Section 127:
The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of an order under section 120(4)(b) or section 127 to confer jurisdiction on the Addl. CIT. The Tribunal referred to various precedents, including the case of Tata Communications Ltd., where it was held that without such an order, the Addl. CIT cannot exercise the powers of an AO. The Tribunal reiterated that the absence of an order transferring jurisdiction invalidates the assessment orders passed by the Addl. CIT.

4. Admission of Additional Grounds:
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the Addl. CIT. The Tribunal noted that these grounds were purely legal and did not require any investigation of new facts. Citing precedents such as National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal held that legal grounds going to the root of the matter could be raised at any stage.

5. Consequences of Quashing the Assessment Orders:
Given that the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders on jurisdictional grounds, the other grounds on jurisdiction and merits became academic and were not adjudicated. Consequently, the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06 were also invalidated. The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) deleting the penalties, as the quantum assessments had been quashed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, quashing the assessment orders passed by the Addl. CIT for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06 on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) were also invalidated. The judgment underscores the importance of proper jurisdictional authorization for tax assessments.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates