RAHUL TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 113/RPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 March 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)12 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer without proper authority, and there was no valid transfer order under Section 127. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2016-17. The primary issue revolves around the validity of the assessment order due to alleged lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice under Section 143(2) and the subsequent assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

The key legal issues were whether the notice under Section 143(2) was validly issued by the Assessing Officer and whether the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction and absence of a transfer order under Section 127.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 127,Section 124(3)(a),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.03.2025Pronounced: 19.03.2025

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 31.01.2024 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the following grounds of appeal on record:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s.143(2) issued by ITO,4(5) who was not having authority of law to issue such notice u/s.143(2) as per sec.2(7A), sec124(1) rws.120(2)&(3); no notice u/s.143(2) issued by

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →