SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF

ITA 508/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 November 2025AY 2020-21Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

A search and seizure operation led to incriminating documents indicating unaccounted cash transactions related to the sale of flats. The assessee, a non-resident Indian, was issued a notice under Section 153C by the Jaipur tax authorities. The assessee contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction as her registered address and PAN were in Delhi, and no order under Section 127 of the Act transferring jurisdiction was provided. The Assessing Officer proceeded to pass an assessment order without following the mandatory procedure under Section 144C for non-residents.

Held

The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 153C by the Jaipur authorities was without jurisdiction as there was no valid order under Section 127 of the Act transferring the jurisdiction from Delhi. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 144C for non-residents. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.

Key Issues

Whether the assessment proceedings initiated and the assessment order passed by the Jaipur tax authorities were without jurisdiction due to the absence of a valid transfer order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Whether the Assessing Officer followed the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 144C for assessment of non-residents.

Sections Cited

153C, 144C, 127, 144, 142(1), 69, 115BBE, 271(1)(c), 124(3), 120, 127(1), 127(2), 127(3), 127(4), 5(7A), 133A, 124(2), 143(1)(a), 143(2), 92CA

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

For Appellant: Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@

Hearing: 17/09/2025Pronounced: 12/11/2025

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.