9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as far as territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction are concerned, objection should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and/or before the settlement of issues and not at the subsequent state. Jurisdiction as to the subject matter is distinct and stands on a different footing Admittedly, assessee has not raised any objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction before the AO. In view of the law laid down in Abhishek Jain that any objection with regard to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity before the settlement of issues and not at a subsequent stage and the interpretation of Section 254 of the Act by this Court, we find no error in the order passed by the ITAT. All questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction and contrary to the Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 and the assessment order is then liable to be annulled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not adjudicating the various grounds of appeals filed by the appellant on the facts and circumstance of the case. 2. Heard Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. K.V. Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is a partnership firm. A survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in assessee s premises on 19.02.2010. Assessee filed its returns for A.Y. [Assessment Year] 2009-10 on 17.03.2010 declaring a to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Raipur); ii. Deepak Agro Foods Vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 16 STR 518 (SC). 7. Opposing the appeal, Shri. Aravind, submitted that the objection raised by the assessee is with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction which has to be urged at the earliest point of time. The ITAT has rightly recorded that the assessment order is an irregular one but not an illegal one and rightly remitted the case for framing fresh assessment. 8. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on following authorities: (i). Abhishek Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 94 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi); (ii). Fidelity Business Services India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Banga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Emphasis Supplied) 13. This court in Fidelity Business Services India (P.) Ltd. has held that the words as it thinks fit confer wide powers upon the ITAT to pass such orders in the subject matter of appeal. 14. Admittedly, assessee has not raised any objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction before the AO. In view of the law laid down in Abhishek Jain that any objection with regard to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity before the settlement of issues and not at a subsequent stage and the interpretation of Section 254 of the Act by this Court, we find no error in the order passed by the ITAT. 15. All three questions raised by the appellant in the memorandum of appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
