2022 (7) TMI 440 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned notice under Section 148 issued by the respondent No.1 ITO-2(1) is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the ITO Ward 2(1) is not the jurisdictional assessing officer for the Assessment Year 2017-18 - HELD THAT - Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the AO shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made. Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any direction or order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officer shall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act on an Assessing Officer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue of the directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120. While the judgment is being dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for time to place before this court some judgments in support of his submissions and with regard to interpretation of the aforenoted provisions. As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, put up in the additional cause list for further hearing on 14.07.2022 at 02 00 P.M.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdictional error in notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The case involves a challenge to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner argues that the notice is without jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2017-18 is different from the one issuing the notice. The petitioner contends that the notice should be quashed as it cannot be proceeded with by the current Assessing Officer. The respondent authorities support the notice and the rejection of the petitioner's objection.

The crux of the issue lies in determining the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 2(7A) defines the Assessing Officer, while Section 120 elaborates on the jurisdiction of income tax authorities. Section 124 further specifies the jurisdiction of Assessing Officers based on the area of operation and the type of taxpayer involved. The petitioner's argument hinges on the interpretation of these provisions to establish the correct jurisdictional Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment years.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel requested time to present judgments supporting their interpretation of the provisions in question. The court granted the request and scheduled further hearing on the matter. The interim order, if any, was extended until the next hearing date. The case underscores the importance of establishing the correct jurisdictional Assessing Officer in tax matters to ensure procedural fairness and legal compliance.

Overall, the judgment revolves around the jurisdictional error alleged in the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The legal arguments focus on statutory provisions defining the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction and the correct application of these provisions to the petitioner's case. The court's decision is pending further examination of relevant judgments and legal interpretations to determine the appropriate course of action regarding the disputed notice.