9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the ACIT Tax-1, Bhilai u/s. 120 of the Act dated 24.09.2020, the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee got vested with ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai. Thus Vesting of jurisdiction over the case of the assessee with ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai is based on the order u/s. 120 of the Act passed by ACIT-1, Bhilai dated 24.09.2020, therefore, there is no substance in the claim of the AR that assumption of jurisdiction by him dehors any order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act could not be sustained. Thus in terms of our aforesaid observations uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly sustained the disallowance by the A.O of the assessee's claim for exemption of LFC - Thus appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - Shri Ravish Sood, Judic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant reserves the right to addition, after or omit all or any of the grounds of appeal in the interest of justice. 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2017- 18 declaring an income of Rs. 8,31,410/-. Based on information that the assessee had though wrongly raised a claim for deduction of Leave Fare Concession (LFC) regarding his travel outside India which was in violation of the provision of Chapter XVII(B) of the Act but the same was wrongly allowed as exempt u/s. 10(5) of the Act by his employer, the A.O initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 3. As the assessee despite affording sufficient opportunity had failed to participate in the assessment proceedings, therefore, the A.O was constrained to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spite having been afforded sufficient opportunity had failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority, therefore, the latter after taking cognizance of the facts of the case dismissed the appeal and upheld the declining of the assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 10(5) of the Act of Rs. 2,44,374/- by the A.O. observing as under: 7.1 Ground no. 1, 2 3: - All the three grounds are general in nature and unsubstantiated and do not merit any separate adjudication. Even the statement of facts (SOF) does not provide any assistance in terms of comprehending the grievance of the appellant, since it is general in nature and only refers to certain events during and post assessment. The appellant in the SOF has mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the CIT(Appeals) on the standalone basis that the assessment order was bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction. Elaborating on his contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai, but thereafter, the ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai de-hors any order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act had assumed jurisdiction and proceeded with the matter and issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act etc. 8. As the assessee has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing of the assessment de-hors any valid order of transfer, based on which, the jurisdiction over his case was transferred from ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai to ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, therefore, the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder consideration. 4. Further, the case was transferred by passing order u/s. 120 of the Act by the then range head reallocating the jurisdiction. On a perusal of the aforesaid report of the A.O, I find that it is therein stated that as per Notification No.1/2014-15 dated 15.11.2014, the jurisdiction over the case of all the private salaried assessee's as on the date of issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 23.03.2020 in the case of the assessee was vested with the ITO, Ward- 2(2), Bhilai. It is further stated that pursuant to the order of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhilai u/s. 120 of the Act dated 24.09.2020 the jurisdiction of ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai was merged with ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai. It is further stated tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of my aforesaid observations uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly sustained the disallowance by the A.O of the assessee's claim for exemption of LFC of Rs. 2,44,374/-. 12. As the Ld. AR has confined his contentions only qua the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing of the assessment vide his order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.09.2021, and had not advanced any contention as regards the merit of the case or otherwise, therefore, I refrain from adverting to the other grounds, which, thus, are dismissed as not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 24th day of May, 2024. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
