Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure operation was conducted on the "OM KOTHARI group". Incriminating documents and data were found, indicating unaccounted cash transactions related to the sale of flats in the "PALLACIA" project. The assessee was issued a notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act without a proper transfer order from Delhi to Jaipur.
Held
The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 153C was without jurisdiction as there was no valid order transferring the jurisdiction from Delhi to Jaipur. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the High Court's direction and allowed the grounds related to the jurisdiction issue.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment proceedings were without jurisdiction due to lack of a valid transfer order, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay without considering the jurisdictional issue.
Sections Cited
153C, 144C, 127, 144, 69, 115BBE, 271(1)(c), 132, 124(3), 120, 142(1), 153A, 5(7A), 19(1)(g), 226, 32, 133A, 124(2), 124(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 505 to 509/JP/2025
order of the ld. CIT(A).
So as far as it relates to the merits of the dispute is concerned she sought time and she also sought time for the contention of the assessee for order u/s. 127 of the Act for transferring the case from Delhi to Jaipur. She submitted that she has requested the DG system to provide the correct details and thereby in the interest of justice time was given to ld. DR.
Thereafter ld. DR from time filed the submission and sought time for the provide that order as the same was not provided to her even though she made request for that order.
Thus, it is undisputed fact that there was no transfer of the case of the assessee from Delhi to Jaipur and thereby the notice so issued by the ITO, Ward 1(3), Jaipur lacs jurisdiction. The issue of deciding the legal ground of jurisdiction is decided by our own High Court in the case of Deep Channel Kothari vs. CIT [ 35 Taxman 223(Rajasthan) ] where in the High court held that ;
In view of these facts, circumstances and authoritative observations, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal was legally not right in not allowing the objections as to the jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate the notice and as to the validity of the proceedings taken in pursuance there of, to be raised. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and against the department.
It is well settled law that the objection regarding lack of jurisdiction is decided first. Only after its decision holding that the Court or Tribunal has jurisdiction, other questions relating to the merits of the case arise for decision otherwise not.
The Tribunal has power to take additional evidence. After taking evidence which is considered necessary, the said point regarding lack of jurisdiction can well be decided by the Tribunal. As such it is neither necessary nor expedient for this Court to decide the remaining questions. The case observes to be sent back to the learned Tribunal for first deciding the said point regarding the lack of jurisdiction.
Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Remaining questions need not be answered because of our answer to question No. 1. raised by the assessee. Since we have considered the ground of jurisdiction and thereby quashed the order in dispute therefore the ground no. 7 to 11 becomes academic. Ground no. 12 premature and ground no. 13 being general does not require our finding.
In the results, the appeal of the assessee in stands allowed.
The facts of the case in to 509/JP/2025 are similar to the facts of the case in and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in these appeal Nos. 506 to 509/JP/2025 are similar on set of facts and grounds. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts, various grounds and arguments raised by both the parties in those appeals. Hence, the bench feels that the decision shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Sonu Dusad in to 509/JP/2025.
In terms of these observations, the appeal of the assessee in to 509/JP/2025 are also allowed.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 12/11/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Sonu Dusad, Delhi 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 505 to 509/JP/2025) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत