9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existed on 01.08.2007. Secondly, even if for some reason, the assessee were unaware of the notification, it became aware that the ACIT was exercising jurisdiction when it received notice from that official in August 2008. Since that was in continuation of the proceeding by the DCIT it could well have been urged by the assessee within the stipulated time that the said officer, ACIT did not possess jurisdiction. Its failure to do so within the stipulated time, i.e. one month after receipt of notice which was in fact a condition of Section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee precluded it from urging lack of jurisdiction. The assessee, however, contended its omission by not urging this ground before the CIT(A) in the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties, by order dated 29.12.2008. During assessment, the objection as to the ACIT s jurisdiction was not articulated. It was also not articulated before the CIT(A). For the first time, the assessee voiced the submission that the ACIT who completed the assessment did not possess jurisdiction to do so, before the ITAT. Since this ground was raised for the first time, the ITAT remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits. This was round two; the assessee could not succeed since the CIT(A) turned down the submission with regard to the lack of jurisdiction, on the basis of the assessee s interpretation of Section 120(4)(b). The ITAT, however, considered the materials on record, including the notification dated 01.08.2007, under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t should not interfere with the order of the ITAT. He relied upon the ruling in Valvoline Cummins Ltd. v. DCIT 307 ITR 103. Emphasising that even according to the Revenue, upon the ACIT being conferred with jurisdiction, the authority to complete the assessment was with him. It was submitted that when notice was issued under Section 143(2) on 15.10.2007, the DCIT had no authority to do so. It was further elaborated that having regard to the text of Section 120(4)(b), a specific authorisation under that Section alone was sufficient for the ACIT to act as an AO. In the circumstances, the Revenue could not have fallen back upon the notification under Section 120(2), which can be issued only in the case of specified authorities mentioned in tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4)(b). Applying that principle, the assessee s argument that the ACIT did not possess jurisdiction cannot be countenanced. It appears that the second reason is more weighty. Section 124(3)(a) enacts a statutory bar as it were to the question of jurisdiction. It reads as follows: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers. 124. XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or under 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 115WE or sub- section (2) of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
