9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel House, 10 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, filed a return declaring a loss of Rs, 52,616 on 30-9-1986 with ITO Company Circle 1(4), New Delhi. Simultaneously the assessee filed a similar return with ITO, Ghaziabad. The Assessing Officer C.C. 1(4) New Delhi made assessment for the year 1986-87 on a total income of Rs. 20,79,226 vide order dated 20-3-1989. The ITO, Ghaziabad also made separate assessment for the same assessment year 1986-87. The assessee, therefore, took up the plea before the CIT (Appeals) that two assessments for the same assessment year by two different Assessing Officers could not be made. it was contended that assessment made by ACIT CC 1(4), New Delhi was without jurisdiction. The learned CIT (Appeals) in the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-1993 issued by him in respect of demands for assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88,1989-90 and 1990-91. The second assessment by company Circle 1(4) was made on 24-3-1993 on a total income of Rs. 20,79,226. 4. The assessee once again impugned the assessment in appeal and raised question of jurisdiction of ITO Company Circle 1(4), New Delhi before CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals), for the reason recorded in para 2.7, held that the jurisdiction was rightly exercised by ACIT CC 1 (4), New Delhi. He also allowed relief of Rs. 12,94,540 in respect of main addition of Rs. 20,62,441. He also deleted certain disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, still being aggrieved, has brought the issue in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1-4-1988. As no objection was filed under the above section before the Assessing Officer, the assessee, now, could not challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Shri Haldhar accordingly supported the assessment. 7. After careful consideration of the rival submissions in the light of statutory provisions, we are of the view that section 124, as introduced w.e.f. 1-4-1988 was applicable in this case. It is true that returns in this case were filed on 30-9-1986 and the provisions as existing on the above date should normally apply. However, section 124 is a procedural in nature and would apply to all cases coming for consideration after the amendment and therefore the question was required to be considered as per the amended prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate authority, the same not having been raised before the Assessing Officer. Shri Haldhar further contended that the assessee himself had submitted the return with ITO Coy. Circle 1(4), New Delhi and cannot complain on ground of territorial jurisdiction. We are unable to find any justification or force in the above objection particularly in the circumstances of this case. It is clear from the scheme of section 124 that question of determination of territorial jurisdiction should always remain vested exclusively in the authorities mentioned in the section. It is further clear that the Assessing Officer cannot create his own territorial jurisdiction nor the same can be vested in him by the assessee by filing return with him. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, double assessments have been made which are not permissible under the law. Therefore, the appeal, as filed by the assessee before the CIT (Appeals) was competent. The other objection of the DR in terms of sub-section (5) of unamended Act (there is no material difference on this point between amended and unamended provisions) is also not valid as the Assessing Officer and, on appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) have gone into the question of territorial jurisdiction. None of the authorities had said that the territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer could not be questioned. There is, further, no proof that objection was not raised within one month of service of notice as mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 124 (amended) or sub-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
