Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order that quashed the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO on jurisdictional grounds. The assessee had challenged the validity of the ITO, Latur's jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order on jurisdictional grounds. The transfer was an intra-range administrative reallocation and not requiring a formal Section 127 order, especially given a jurisdictional order. The assessee's failure to object to jurisdiction before the AO precluded them from challenging it later.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment order was liable to be quashed on jurisdictional grounds due to non-compliance with Section 127, and whether the assessee waived their right to object by not raising it earlier.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 46A, 127, 124, 120, 271(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Date of hearing : 13/08/2025 Date of pronouncement : 25/08/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the revenue is filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [in short, ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-13, date of order 24/01/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Office, Ward-1, Latur [in short, the “Ld. AO”], passed under section 143(3), date of order 30/03/2025.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) during the impugned assessment year with additions under different
2 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh heads, totaling Rs.6,45,82,603/-. The aggrieved assesse filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) whereby the challenged assessment order on merits as well as legally. On legal grounds, the assesse challenged the validity of jurisdiction of the ITO, Latur under section 127 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) passed an order considering the legal grounds of the assesse and upheld the ground taken by the assessee on legal issue. But on merits, the issue was kept for academic purpose. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed an appeal before us by challenging the legal ground.
The Ld. DR in argument on grounds 2 to 7 stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the provisions of section 46A of the Income-tax rules, 1963 (in short, ‘the Rule’); so the Ld.AO has not been provided the reasonable opportunity for the submission his evidence. In relation to ground no.1, the Ld. DR argued that there is no requirement for order under section 127 of the Act, as the transfer merely because the file moves between officers who already share the same territorial or functional jurisdiction. The immunity was granted U/s 127(3) of the Act. Further, he argued that the assesse has not made any objection regarding the applicability of section 124 of the Act within one month before the Ld.AO. So, the Ld. DR prayed that the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) should be set aside. The Ld.DR filed a written note, which is kept on record and the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted below:- “The Revenue Department seeks to overturn the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the case of Sushil kumar Subhashrao Deshmukh for Assessment Year 2012-13 The CIT(A) quashed the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward-1. Latur, on jurisdictional grounds and admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee The Grounds of Appeal filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) raise critical issues regarding the validity of the jurisdictional transfer and the propriety of admitting additional evidence
3 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This conclusion presents a robust case on behalf of the Revenue Department, supported by valid arguments, logical rebuttals, and judicial precedents. The Revenue's appeal was filed on raising the following grounds:
Grounds of appeal
"i. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case cond in love, the Ld. CITA) justified in quashing the assessment order passed by the AO, on the grounds that Order U/s 127 wax not passed, without appreciating the facts that the order w/s. 127 is not mandatory in such cases wherein the case record and/or PAN of the assessee is required to be transferred from an AO to another 40 within the same Range/Pr. Commissioner of income tax charge is the light of the Jurisdictional Order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax" ii. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law the La CIT(Appeals) justified in admitting, additional evidence from the assessee despite the fact that the conditions land down Under Rule 46.8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 were not fulfilled. iii. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT (Appeals) erred in overlooking the fact that none of the four conditions laid down in sub rule of Rule 46A was fulfilled and therefore seriously erred in admitting additional evidence: iv. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the came and in law the Lat. CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate that a. there was no allegation against the assessing officer in so far as refusal to admit evidence from the assessee was concerned. b. the appellant had not made out a case before the Ld.CIT (Appeals) to indicate that he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence which he was called upon to produce and which was sought to be produced before the Ld CIT(A); c. The appellant has not made out a cave before the Ld CIT(A) to prove that he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the assessing officer any evidence which was relevant to any of the grounds of appeal; and d. The assessee has not made out a case or has alleged before the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) that the assessing officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. While admitting additional evidence filed by the appellant assesse. v. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and is law the learned Commissioner of Income tax grossly erred in admitting additional evidence. Under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and while doing so failed to appreciate that one of the conditions laid down therein was fulfilled so as to lead him to admit such evidence;
4 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh vi. "Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT (A) was justified in quashing the assessment of AO, on the issue of jurisdiction, without appreciating the fact that no objection was raised by the assesse on the issue of jurisdiction, before the Assessing Officer, as mandated in Section 124 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore that the assesse was precluded from objecting to the assessment proceedings or to the assessment order on the grounds of jurisdiction.” vii "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in love, the L. CIT(A) erred in relying on such Hon'ble ITAT's decision in which the facts are different from the present case?" viii. "The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of the ground of appeal, if need be."
Jurisdictional Issue: Quashing of the Assessment Order
Argument The CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order on the grounds that no order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed to transfer the case from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Latur Circle to ITO Ward-1. Latur. The Revenue Department contends that a Section 127 order is not mandatory for transfers within the same Range or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax charge, particularly when supported by a jurisdictional order issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Furthermore, the assessee's failure to object to jurisdiction before the Assessing Officer (AO), as required under Section 124, precludes them from raising this issue at the appellate stage. No Section 127 Order Required for Intra-Range Transfers The transfer from DCIT, Latur Circle to 110 Ward-1, Latur occurred within the same jurisdictional range under the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Section 127(1) empowers the Commissioner to transfer cases between Assessing Officers subordinate to them, and Section 127(3) relaxes the requirement of providing an opportunity of being heard for transfers within the same city. The Revenue Department argues that intra-range transfers. especially within the same city like Latur, do not necessitate a formal Section 127 order, as they are administrative reallocations within the same jurisdictional hierarchy. This position is supported by the administrative practice of the Income Tax Department, where case records or PANs are reassigned within a range without requiring a specific transfer order, particularly when a jurisdictional order under Section 120 or other directives already assigns authority to the relevant officer.
5 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh Existence of a Jurisdictional Order
The Grounds of Appeal explicitly state that the transfer was made "in light of a jurisdictional order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax." Section 120 of the Income Tax Act allows the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) or Commissioners to assign jurisdiction to Assessing Officers. A jurisdictional order under Section 120 could have allocated cases, including the assessee's, to ITO Ward- 1, Latur, thereby negating the need for a separate Section 127 order. The CIT(A) failed to investigate the existence or implications of such an order, instead focusing solely on the absence of a Section 127 order. This oversight undermines the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment. Assessee's Failure to Object to Jurisdiction Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act implies that an assessee must object to the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer at the earliest opportunity. In this case, the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings before ITO Ward-1, Latur without raising any jurisdictional objection The Revenue Department argues that this participation constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge jurisdiction at a later stage. The Delhi High Court in Abhishek Jain vs. Income Tax Officer (2018) held that an assessce cannot question the jurisdiction of the AO after failing to object within the stipulated period or in case of non-compliance. This principle supports the Revenue's contention that the assessee's belated jurisdictional challenge is legally untenable. Addressing the Bombay High Court's View The Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (2017, 404 ITR 63) held that waiver by an assessee or participation in assessment proceedings does not confer jurisdiction on an AO lucking it. While this precedent is binding on ITAT Mumbai, the Revenue Department distinguishes the present case by arguing that ITO Ward-1, Latur had jurisdiction due to an administrative reallocation within the same range, supported by a jurisdictional order. Unlike Lalitkumar Bardia, where the jurisdictional defect was clear, the present case involves a transfer within the same city and range, which does not necessarily require a formal Section 127 order. Judicial Precedents
• Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (2017, 404 ITR 63) The court held that waiver does not confer jurisdiction, emphasizing that an AO lacking jurisdiction cannot pass a valid order. However, the Revenue Department argues that this case is distinguishable, as the present transfer was within the same
6 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh range and supported by a jurisdictional order, ensuring that ITO Ward-1, Latur had valid authority.
• Delhi High Court in Abhishek Jain vs. Income Tax Officer (2018)
This case supports the Revenue's position that an assessee's failure to object to jurisdiction during assessment proceedings bars them from raising the issue later. Although not from Mumbai, this principle is widely accepted and strengthens the Revenue's case.
Conclusion on Jurisdiction The CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order on jurisdictional grounds. The transfer from DCIT, Latur Circle to ITO Ward-1, Latur was an intra-range administrative reallocation, not requiring a formal Section 127 order, especially in light of a jurisdictional order by the Principal Commissioner. Moreover, the assessee's failure to object to jurisdiction before the AO, as required under Section 124, precludes them from challenging it at the appellate stage. The ITAT should restore the assessment order, considering the administrative validity of the transfer and the assessee's waiver.”
The Ld.AR argued and relied on the impugned appeal order of the Ld.CIT(A). The relevant paragraph 5 is extracted below:- 5.1. During the appellate proceedings the appellant also filed an application under Rule 46A of the Act to admit additional evidences. The additional ground of the appeal as well as additional evidences were admitted by the then CIT(A)-2 Aurangabad. A remand report was called from the AO vide letter No. ABD/CIT(A)-2/remand report/2017-18/1182 dated 22.08.2017. The AO, the DCIT, Latur Circle submitted a remand report vide letter no. LTR/DCIT/Cir/scr. rep/SSD/2017-18 dated 04.01.2018. A copy of the remand report was sent to the appellant for comments/rejoinder. The appellant vide letter dated 08.08.2017 submitted comments/rejoinder to the remand report. 5.2 For ready reference the relevant para of the remand report of the AO are reproduced as under: “…(A) Issue No. 1: Territorial Jurisdiction pertaining to the cases of Osmanabad District: The assessee in his additional grounds of appeal
has contended that the territorial jurisdiction over the assessee from Osmanabad was vested in the ITO Ward Osmanabad. In this case, the 7. ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh return of income was filed on 01/12/2012 vide Ack. No. 535889340001 1212 declaring Rs.14,78,284/-. The address on the return of income is as under: Shri Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh 1194/9, Flat No.2, Shubhshri Society, Ghole Road, Pune-411 005. The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) dated 14/08/2013 was duly served on the assessee by RPAD by the ACIT, Circle, Nanded. The assessee acknowledged the receipt of the notice u/s. 143(2) vide his letter dated 27/08/2013 filed in the office on 05/09/2013 and asked for adjournment. Thereafter, the case was transferred to this office on it’s creation on 15/11/2014. However, this office transferred the case records to the ITO, Ward-1, Latur on 24/11/2014 as the income the assessee was below Rs. 15,00,000/-. The assessee’s address on the return of income is of Pune since AY 2009-10. Further, he has also chosen the correspondence address as Pune only which can be seen in his PAN profile. Another notice u/s.142(1) r.w.s.129 dated 19/11/2014 was served on the assessee by speed post. The case was fixed on 11/12/2014 at 11:00AM. However, on that date Shri Ram Deshmukh, cousin of the assessee, attended and again submitted a letter seeking adjournment for 20 days. Therefore, a notice u/s.271(1)(b) was issued on 11/12/2014 and duly served on Shri Ram Deshmukh by hand. Finally on 18/12/2014 Shri Sushil Deshmukh attended along with Shri S.V. Survase CA and AR. He submitted the Para wise reply to the questionnaire dated 29/11/2014 with all ledger extract. Since then till the compilation of assessment i.e. on 30/03/2015 the assessee and his AR attended no. of times but never raised the issue of jurisdiction, which can be seen from the case records. Even after that, the assessee has not taken up the issue in the first submission to the CIT(A). He raised the issue for the first time in the additional grounds submitted to the CIT(A)-2 on 04/08/2017.
(B) Issue No. 2: Order passed u/s. 127 assigning ‘the case of assessee to the ITO Ward-1, Latur. It is seen from the records available with this office that there was no order passed u/s. 127 assigning the case of assessee to the ITO Ward 1, Latur. Thus decision may be taken on merit on this point…”
8 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh 5.3 The comments/rejoinder of the appellant of remand report of the AO are also reproduced as under : “…5. Territorial Jurisdiction pertaining to the case of Osmanabad District: a) As per section 124 (1) of the Act, Assessing Officer shall be have jurisdiction i) In respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situate ii) In respect of any other person residing within the area. b) In present case Assessee is running his business At Post – Dhoki, District – Osmanabad it means there is Jurisdiction of ITO Ward 3 up to November 2014. c) Thereafter all the cases of Osmanabad district transferred from ITO ward 3 to Osmanabad ward ITO, as new Osmanabad ward ITO charge is newly created in November 2014. d) It means on the said Assessee from November 2014 there was jurisdictional charge of ITO Osmanabad ward. e) It was bound duty of the ITO ward 3 to transfer this case to Osmanabad ITO ward, but same is not transferred. f) After creation of Osmanabad ward ITO ward 3 lost his jurisdictional charge on Assessee. g) To retain the case in Ward 3, Order u/s 127 was mandatory. But there is no such order given by respective Commissioner of Income Tax. h) It clearly means Assessment is made without charge by the ITO ward 1. i) If an order does not possess requisite strength in the eye of law and is void ab initio, then it will remain so even if there is acquiescence or participation by the assessee in the proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment order. j) It is well settled law that consent of the assessee cannot confer jurisdiction to an Assessing Officer who lacked jurisdiction under the law. k) A. O. stated in his remand report that, this issue was not raised during the assessment proceedings nor raised in appeal drafting and same is raised on 04/08/2017. In the eyes of law when issue has been raised is not important, what is the issue it is more important. l) A. O. in his remand report is very silent about creation of ward Osmanabad and there is 9 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh no jurisdiction over the assessee of Ward 1 Latur, after creation of Osmanabad Ward. It clearly mean that Assessing Officer confusing actual facts in his remand report. m) Assessing Officer failed to justify how Ward 1 Latur has jurisdiction over Assessee. Also failed and avoided the matter why case was not transferred to Ward Osmanabad after its creation while all such cases were transferred. Why this single case was retained by ward 1 latur without jurisdiction. n) A. O. Accepted the fact that, there is no order U/s 127 assigning case of Assessee to Ward 1, Latur, Even though assessment order is passed by the said authority without jurisdiction over the assessee. o) Assessment framed is illegal, void in the eyes of law. Prayer before CIT (A) on this issue: i) Assessment is framed by the non jurisdictional Authority is null and void in the eyes of law and as per the provisions of act and rules made there under. ii) Order such framed be quashed by considering provisions of the Law…”
5.4. The facts recorded and finding of the AO in the assessment order and remand report and the submission made by the appellant along with the rejoinder/ comments to the remand report have been considered. 5.4.1 The facts of the case of the appellant, are that for A.Y. 2012-13, the appellant filed return of income on 01.12.2012. The ACIT, Circle, Nanded issued notice u/s. 143(2) on 14.08.2013. On creation of the charge of ACIT, Circle, Latur the case was transferred to ACIT, Latur on 15.11.2014. As the income of the assessee was below 15 lacs, the case was transferred to ITO Ward-1, Latur on 24.11.2014. The order u/s. 143(3) for A.Y. 2012-13 was passed by ITO Ward-1, Latur on 30.03.2015.
5.4.2 In the rejoinder the appellant submitted that the appellant was running business at Dhoki, District Osmanabad, therefore, the jurisdiction was with ITO Ward-3 upto November 2014. After creation of charge of ITO Ward, Osmanabad in November 2014, the cases of Osmanabad District were transferred from ITO Ward-3 to Osmanabad Ward. Thus, from November 2014 onwards,
10 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh the jurisdiction over the appellant was with ITO Ward-Osmanabad. The appellant submitted that order u/s. 127 was mandatory to have jurisdictional over the appellant by ITO Ward-3, Latur. Thus, the appellant submitted with assessment order u/s. 143(3) passed by ITO Ward-1, Latur was without jurisdiction and it should be quashed.
5.4.3 It is fact that the notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by ACIT, Circle Nanded. On creation of charge of Latur Circle, Latur in November 2014 the case was transferred to ACIT, Latur Cir., latur. As the income was less than 15 lacs, the case was transferred to ITO Ward-1, Latur on 24.11.2014 by DCIT, Latur, Circle Latur. Thereafter ITO(Ward)-1, Latur finalized the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The appellant has challenged that after creation of Osmanabad Ward in November 2014, the jurisdiction over the appellant was with Osmanabad Ward.
The jurisdiction of the assessing officers of Latur Range has been verified from the website incometax.india.gov.in. The appellant is an individual and carrying out business of manufacturing of tractor trolly, agricultural implements and other fabrication work. The income of the appellant for A.Y. 2012-13 was Rs. 14,78,284/- Therefore, the jurisdiction over the case was with the ITO. The case of the appellant was transferred by ACIT, Circle, Nanded to DCIT, Latur Circle on 15.11.2014. From DCIT, Latur Circle. the case was transferred to ITO Ward-1, Latur on 24.11.2014. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) has been passed by ITO Ward-1, Latur. However, the jurisdictional over the case of the appellant was with ITO Ward-4, Latur. Thus, the correct jurisdictional officer of the appellant was ITO Ward 4, Latur. In the remand report the DCIT, Latur Circle has stated that no order u/s. 127 was passed to transfer the case from DCIT, Latur, Cir. to ITO Ward-1, Latur. Thus, in absence of any order u/s. 127 assigning the case of the appellant to ITO, Ward-1, Latur, assumption of jurisdiction over the appellant by ITO Ward-1, Latur was without any authority. In the case of Dr. Hari Singh Chandel v. ITO [2024] 166 taxmann.com 353 (Raipur -Trib.), the ITAT, Raipur has held that assessee was in receipt of notice from an officer who was not vested with jurisdiction over the case of assessee either under section 124(1) or under section 127 or by 11 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh notification or circular or instruction of CBDT, then, no obligation would be cast upon assessee to call in question his jurisdiction as per mandate of sub-section (3) of section 124. In this case the ITAT, Raipur has held as under. ".... Also, there is substance in the claim of the assessee that as it is neither the case of the revenue nor a fact borne from record that the ITO, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur had got vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee pursuant to any transfer of jurisdiction over his case from the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur under section 127, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by him would also not be justified on the said count. Admittedly, no order under section 127 evidencing any transfer of the case of the assessee from the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur i.e. the jurisdictional Officer to the ITO, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur is available on the assessment record. On the contrary, though the jurisdictional history of the assessee reveals that his case on 27-9-2013 was transferred from the ITO, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur to the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, but as to on what basis the jurisdiction over his case which since last many years had remained vested with the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur (as evidenced on a perusal of the income tax returns of the preceding years) on the first occasion was transferred to the ITO, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur remains an unresolved mystery till date. [Para 22] On a specific query by the bench as to on what basis the jurisdiction over the case of the assesse was vested with the ITO, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur, the revenue could not give any plausible answer. Only contention of the revenue was that the case of the assessee was allocated to the ITO, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur on the basis of PAN jurisdiction. However, as the statute does not recognize any PAN jurisdiction for the reason that the specific jurisdictions as stands vested with an Assessing Officer, viz. (i) territorial jurisdiction; (ii) persons or classes of persons jurisdiction; (iii) jurisdiction on the basis of income/classes of income i.e. pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iv) jurisdiction as per cases or classes of cases, are clearly spelt out in sub-section (3) of section 120, therefore, the aforesaid claim of the revenue cannot be accepted. [Para 23].
12 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh Thus, the impugned assessment under section 143(3), dated 12-3-2014 had been framed de hors any valid notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Accordingly, the assessment framed by the ITO, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur vide his order passed under section 143(3), dated 12-3-2014 is quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. [Para 24]…” 5.4.4 The correct jurisdiction over the appellant was ITO Ward-4, Latur and not ITO Ward-1, Latur. Thus, the assessment order u/s. 143(3) passed by the ITO Ward-1, Latur in the case of the appellant for A.Y. 2013-14 is without jurisdiction and it is liable to be quashed. Thus, the assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 30.03.2015 passed by ITO Ward-1, Latur in the case of appellant for A.Y. 2012-13 is quashed being without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the ground no. 1 along with the additional ground no.2 and 3 of the appeal are allowed.”
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the documents available on record. The core issue pertains to the change of jurisdiction in the context of an inter-city transfer. The learned Ld. DR contended that Section 127(3) of the Act, empowers the revenue to effect an inter-city transfer without issuing a formal order, and that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) can proceed within the framework of concurrent jurisdiction. According to the Ld. DR, this constitutes an internal reallocation rather than a change of jurisdiction necessitating prior notice under Section 127(1) or 127(2). This provision, it was argued, is intended to facilitate administrative efficiency, particularly in large metropolitan areas or specialized units. In relation to the applicability of Section 124, the Ld. DR placed complete reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Abhishek Jain v. Income-tax Officer [(2018) 405 ITR 1 (Del)], wherein the Hon’ble Court dismissed the 13 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh assessee’s appeal on the ground that no objection to jurisdiction had been filed within the prescribed period of one month before the Assessing Officer. Further, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [[2023] 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC)], wherein it was held that where the High Court had set aside a notice issued under Section 143(2) on the ground that the jurisdictional officer had not adjudicated upon the returns owing to a change in jurisdiction after the returns were filed, such an order could not be sustained if records revealed that the assessee had participated in proceedings pursuant to a notice under Section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the Ld. AR relied on the decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, Raipur, in Sarita Jain v. ITO [(2025) 174 taxmann.com 549 (Raipur-Trib.)] and Income-tax Officer v. Bhagyaarna Gems & Jewellery (P.) Ltd. [(2025) 171 taxmann.com 689 (Raipur-Trib.)]. However, both these cases are distinguishable on facts. In our considered view, the assessee did not raise any objection in terms of the provisions of Section 124 of the Act. Accordingly, the legal ground decided by the Ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee is set aside. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, considering the submissions and material placed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and is expected to remain diligent and co-operative to ensure the expeditious disposal of the appeal.
14 ITA 2025/Mum /2025 Sushilkumar Subhashrao Deshmukh 6. In regard to rule 46A of I.T. Rules, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) has taken cognizance on the basis of the remand report before passing the order. As a result, grounds 2-7 of the revenue are dismissed and ground 1 is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing