9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of assessing officer, Admissibility of additional ground challenging jurisdiction, Transfer of cases under section 127
Jurisdiction of assessing officer: The appellant raised the issue of jurisdiction of the assessing officer in making the assessment without being served with an order of change of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the assessment is non est in law due to lack of proper service of the order of change of jurisdiction. However, the tribunal noted that the notice of hearing was served on the appellant, and the appellant did not request an adjournment or appear for the hearing. The tribunal disposed of the appeal ex parte after hearing the departmental representative and considering the available material. Admissibility of additional ground challenging jurisdiction: The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of authorities in the Central Circle. The CIT(A) rejected the additional ground as an afterthought but still addressed the issue on merits. The tribunal referred to a Delhi High Court case to support the conclusion that jurisdictional challenges are permissible only until the assessment is framed. Since the assessing officer and the assessee were localized in Delhi, with income earned there, the tribunal found the assessing officer to have territorial jurisdiction. The objection by the assessee regarding the assessing officer's jurisdiction was deemed without merit and rejected. Transfer of cases under section 127: The tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 127 of the Act, which empower the Commissioner to transfer cases. It was noted that the Commissioner does not need to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in cases of transfer within the same city, locality, or place where all officers are situated. The tribunal emphasized that the purpose of providing an opportunity is linked to the service of notice, which is not required in cases of transfer within the same area. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim of non-service of notice of transfer and lack of opportunity for a hearing had no merit, as the Act does not mandate such requirements. The tribunal dismissed the appeal based on these findings.
|
