2005 (10) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee-respondent in spite of final opportunity having been granted on the earlier date of hearing. The counsel for the assessee has expressed his inability to appear being busy elsewhere. We have no alternative but to proceed with the disposal of this appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record. 3. The learned Departmental Representative brought to the notice of the Bench that the assessee had never questioned the jurisdiction of the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. Sec. 124(3) of the IT Act makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the AO cannot be challenged after the expiry of one month from the date of service of notice on the assessee under s. 143(2). In vi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he assessment order shows the designation of the officer passing the order as Asstt. CIT-2(1), Raipur, whereas same should have been Asstt. CIT (RHQ). The fact is that Shri G.P. Ghore was the Asstt. CIT (RHQ), Office of the Chief CIT, Raipur, between the period 11th March, 2002 to 31st March, 2002 and Shri S.A Mirajkar was the Asstt. CIT,2(1), from 11th March, 2002 to 31st March, 2002, therefore, Shri G.P. Ghore, Asstt. CIT (RHQ), has passed the assessment order but the designation shown under this name and also rubber stamp as Asstt. CIT-2(1), Raipur, is not correct. As stated above, Shri Ghore was not holding the charge of Asstt. CIT-2(1), Raipur, on the date of passing the assessment order, i.e., 18th March, 2002. Therefore, it is obvio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thout jurisdiction and is nullity. The assessment is annulled for lack of jurisdiction. 5. In view of the foregoing, it is very clear that the learned CIT(A) proceeded to consider the assessee's case on the legal infirmity as brought to his knowledge without adjudicating the merit agitated by the assessee-appellant before him in ground No. 1. The contention of the learned Departmental Representative as pointed out above makes it clear that the learned CIT(A) did not proceed in accordance with the provisions of s. 124 which have been also confirmed by the various decisions of the High Court as relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative. In view thereof, we find force in the submission of the learned Departmental Representative a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X