2021 (6) TMI 433 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of assessment - order passed u/s 143(3A) 143(3B) - challenge to the assessment order is made on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction - HELD THAT - In this particular case, the reason that we are proceeding ahead with the matter, is that, we are persuaded by the arguments advanced by Mr. Vohra that the impugned assessment order dated 15.04.2021 could not have been passed under Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) after March 31, 2021, having regard to the provisions of Section 143(3D) of the Act. Petitioner is also right in his contention that the CBDT notification dated 31.03.2021, to which, we have made a reference hereinabove, also says, in effect, the same thing, i.e., that after 01.04.2021, the assessment order could have only have been passed in consonance with the provisions of Section 144B of the Act. We are inclined to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 15.04.2021 as also the notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Act and the notice for initiating penalty proceedings issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act. The respondent/revenue will have liberty to proceed with the assessment process, albeit, under the provisions of Section 144B.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to assessment order under Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer.
3. Maintainability of writ petition despite appeal filed with CIT(A).

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the challenge to the assessment order dated 15.04.2021 passed under Sections 143(3), 143(3A), and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also contested the notice of demand and penalty proceedings issued on the same date. The main contention was that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction after 01.04.2021, invoking Sections 143(3D) and Section 144B of the Act, along with a CBDT notification dated 31.03.2021. The petitioner argued that the order was non-est in the eyes of the law due to lack of jurisdiction.

2. The court considered the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner, emphasizing the provisions of Sections 143(3D) and Section 144B of the Act. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the impugned assessment order was beyond the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction post 31.03.2021, as per the CBDT notification. The court agreed with this argument, setting aside the assessment order, notice of demand, and penalty proceedings. However, the respondent was granted liberty to proceed with the assessment process under Section 144B of the Act, ensuring due process and opportunities for the petitioner to respond and be heard.

3. Despite the respondent's contention that the petitioner had already appealed to CIT(A), the court held that challenging an assessment order passed without jurisdiction was a valid ground for the writ petition. Citing legal precedent, the court emphasized that a decree passed without jurisdiction is null and void, allowing the petitioner's writ petition to proceed. The court's decision was based on the fundamental principle that a defect of jurisdiction cannot be cured, even by consent of parties, and must be rectified to uphold the authority of the court.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the High Court, the legal arguments presented by both parties, and the court's decision based on the jurisdictional aspects of the case under the Income Tax Act, 1961.