9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1242 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction over the case of the assessee initiating reopening assessment - assessee is a private salaried employee - assumption of jurisdiction by order of transfer u/s. 127 - disallowance of claim of exemption of Leave Fare Concession - HELD THAT - Admittedly, as per the Notification No.1/2014-15 dated 15.11.2014, the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, i.e. a private salaried employee as on the date of issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 23.03.2020 was vested with ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai. However, pursuant to the order of the ACIT Tax-1, Bhilai u/s. 120 of the Act dated 24.09.2020, the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee got vested with ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai. Thus Vesting of jurisdiction over the case of the assessee with ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai is based on the order u/s. 120 of the Act passed by ACIT-1, Bhilai dated 24.09.2020, therefore, there is no substance in the claim of the AR that assumption of jurisdiction by him dehors any order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act could not be sustained. Thus in terms of our aforesaid observations uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly sustained the disallowance by the A.O of the assessee's claim for exemption of LFC - Thus appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, jurisdictional concerns regarding the assessment order, disallowance of claim of exemption of Leave Fare Concession, and the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer. Initiation of Re-assessment Proceedings (u/s. 147): The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) arising from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) under Sec. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant challenged the initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 without fulfilling necessary conditions stipulated under the Act, claiming it to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Jurisdictional Concerns Regarding Assessment Order: The assessment order was challenged on the grounds that the Notice u/s. 148 was issued by a different Income-tax Officer (ITO) than the one having jurisdiction over the case, without passing the necessary order u/s. 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the assessment order was bad in law, illegal, and lacked jurisdiction due to this discrepancy. Disallowance of Claim of Exemption of Leave Fare Concession: The A.O disallowed the claim of exemption of Rs. 2,44,374 related to Leave Fare Concession (LFC) as the assessee failed to provide any explanation or documentary evidence to support the claim. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this disallowance, stating that the appellant did not substantiate the claim during assessment proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Validity of Jurisdiction Assumed by the Assessing Officer: The appellant contested the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing the assessment, arguing that the jurisdiction transfer from one ITO to another was not done in accordance with the law. However, after reviewing the assessment records and a report from the A.O, it was found that the jurisdictional transfer was validly executed, and the A.O had the authority to proceed with the assessment. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed based on the upheld jurisdiction of the A.O and the sustained disallowance of the claim for exemption of Leave Fare Concession. The validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O was found to be in accordance with the law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on these grounds.
|
