SRI TAAMING WELLY,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the assessee's case was without jurisdiction as the JCIT lacked the power to transfer it under Section 127 and no opportunity was granted to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, rendering the subsequent penalty order non-est.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals challenged penalty and assessment orders. A key issue was the transfer of the assessee's case from one Assessing Officer to another without proper procedure and opportunity for the assessee. The assessee also claimed exemption under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the transfer of the assessee's case by the JCIT was valid under Section 127 of the Act, and if not, whether the subsequent assessment and penalty orders are liable to be quashed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 127,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(c),Section 10(26)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, GUWAHATI
PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] vide order dated 13.03.2020 and 24.09.2020 respectively on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that the penalty order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad in law, facts and procedure.
For that in absence of any DIN being quoted and/or com
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 127
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kishor Kumar Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs ACIT-Central Circle-30- Delhi., DelhiITA 2305/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Kishor Kumar Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs ACIT-Central Circle-30, DelhiITA 2304/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Chenna Narayana Chakka, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward 6(1), HyderabadITA 1944/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Chenna Narayana Chakka, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward-6(1), HyderabadITA 1943/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
