9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1270 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Transfer of case from one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer - jurisdiction of ITO Ward 2 Narnaul to whom the case was transferred from ITO ward 2 Rewari by the JCIT Rewari - HELD THAT - As decided in OM PRAKASH SON SH. NAND LAL VERSUS ITO WARD-2, REWARI 2017 (7) TMI 861 - ITAT DELHI as assessment passed by the ITO Ward (2) Narnaul was without jurisdiction, in view of the arguments made by the Ld. counsel for the assessee. As in the absence of jurisdiction, order made by Addl. CIT is a nullity. Further provisions contained in section 124 is of no help to the Revenue in as much as here is a case where the Addl. CIT lacks jurisdiction and is not a case of exercise of jurisdiction of territorial jurisdiction. The assessment has to be completed by the authority who has initiated the proceedings for making assessment and any another authority and take over the proceedings only after a proper order of transfer u/s.127(1) or 127(2) of the proceedings. The Revenue has not brought any order for transfer of proceedings thus assessment proceedings are void without there being an order u/s. 127(1). Thus we hold that the assessment is without jurisdiction and is, accordingly, quashed. Since we have quashed the assessment order, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the assessing officer, Validity of assessment order, Denial of exemptions claimed under Section 54F of IT Act, Denial of agricultural income claim, Assessment without jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction of the assessing officer: The appeal raised concerns regarding the jurisdiction of the assessing officer and the validity of the assessment order. The appellant argued that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction over the case, as the case was transferred without proper authorization. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that the assessment order was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, citing lack of jurisdiction and the absence of proper transfer orders as reasons for the decision. Validity of assessment order: The appellant contended that the assessment order was invalid due to various reasons, including undated and incorrect reasons recorded for issuing a notice under section 148. Additionally, the appellant raised objections to the assessment being framed without the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and previous judgments, found the assessment to be without jurisdiction and subsequently quashed the order. Denial of exemptions claimed under Section 54F of IT Act: The appellant challenged the denial of full exemption claimed under Section 54F of the IT Act. However, the Tribunal's decision to quash the assessment order due to lack of jurisdiction rendered it unnecessary to delve into the merits of this specific claim. Denial of agricultural income claim: The appellant also contested the denial of agricultural income claim without any basis by the assessing officer. However, since the assessment order was quashed on grounds of jurisdiction, the Tribunal did not address this specific claim separately. Assessment without jurisdiction: Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the assessment was without jurisdiction and therefore quashed the assessment order. The decision was based on the lack of proper transfer orders and the absence of jurisdiction of the assessing officer. The Tribunal's ruling in this case aligned with previous judgments and established legal principles regarding the importance of jurisdiction in assessment proceedings.
|
