9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Act was bad in law and (b) that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Patiala, had no jurisdiction over the wealth-tax cases of the assessee ? 2. The jurisdiction over the assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Income-tax Act ), was vested in the Income-tax Officer Central, Circle (1), Ludhiana, who was also the Wealth-tax Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax, vide order dated December 21, 1978, under section 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, directed that power conferred on the Income-tax Officer shall be exercised by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) in respect of cases mentioned in the said order. There was, however, no order passed in respect of jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officers, Central Circle (1), Ludhiana, but the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) passed assessment orders under the Wealth-tax Act also in respect of the assessee. Since only specific cases could be transferred, no jurisdiction was conferred on the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) and exercise of jurisdiction under the Wealth-tax Act by the said officer wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve convenience than of jurisdiction and that in any event it is not one for adjudication by the court . . . This confirms us in the view that the scheme of the Act does not contemplate an objection as to the place of assessment being raised on an appeal against the assessment after the assessment has been made. As we have already pointed out, the objection was not raised in the present case even before the Appellate Income-tax Officer but only before the Appellate Tribunal. 7. In Ajanta Industries' case [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC), the question was as to the legality of the order of transfer without complying with the provisions of section 127 of the Act. The assessee challenged the order in a writ petition before the High Court but the writ petition was dismissed. The hon' ble Supreme Court held that non-communication of the reasons vitiated the order of transfer. 8. In Geeta Ram Kali' s case [1980] 121 ITR 708 (All) [FB] the question was about the scope of an appeal under section 246 of the Act and it was held that appeal being available on specified grounds, other grounds could not be raised. 9. In Amrit Sports Industries' case [1984] 145 ITR 231 (P H), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee from raising such an objection. 15. The above discussion shows that as far as the judgments in Rai Bahadur Seth' s case [1959] 36 ITR 9 (SC) and Jaipur Udhyog Limited' s case [1992] 198 ITR 282 (Raj) are concerned, instead of advancing the case of the assessee, go against the plea raised by the assessee. As regards other judgments, the same are distinguishable being in different context. 16. A distinction has to be made between a situation when there is inherent lack of jurisdiction and a situation where jurisdiction is irregularly assumed and plea of want of jurisdiction can be waived by a party. In the latter situation, the question arises whether party who could waive the plea of jurisdiction, raised such a plea and whether such a party had been prejudiced on account of erroneous assumption of jurisdiction. The present case, in our view, falls in the second category. The assessee participated in assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer to whom assessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act were transferred and who exercised jurisdiction to assess wealth-tax also with the participation of the assessee without any objection by the assessee. If the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Bombay High Court on the original side, under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the correct ness of the procedure or of the order granting the leave could be questioned by the defendant or the objection could be waived by him. When he agreed to refer the matter to arbitration through court, he would be deemed to have waived his objection to the territorial juris diction of the court, raised by him in his written statement. It is well settled that the objection as to local jurisdiction of a court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a court to try a case. Competence of a court to try a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction, and where it is lacking, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, an objection as to the local jurisdiction of a court can be waived and this principle has been given a statutory recognition by enactments like section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having consented to have the controversy between the parties resolved by reference to arbitration through court, the defendant deprived himself of the right to question the authority of the court to refer the matter to arbitration or of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
