Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction in framing the assessment for AY 2017-18, arguing that neither the original Income Tax Officer nor the one who framed the assessment had the proper jurisdiction to issue the Section 143(2) notice. The Revenue contended that the assessee was barred from raising a challenge to jurisdiction under Section 124(3) as they had participated in the assessment proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal found prima facie merits in the assessee's arguments, noting that the case file did not show a proper transfer of jurisdiction and that Section 124(3) did not apply to the AO who finalized the assessment. The CIT(A)/NFAC's rejection of the jurisdictional ground was deemed unsustainable. The appeal is reversed, and the matter is restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessing Officer had proper jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 143(2) and frame the assessment, and whether the assessee was barred from challenging jurisdiction under section 124(3).
Sections Cited
143(3), 143(2), 124(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s DIN and order no.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059019981(1), dated 22.12.2023, in case no. CIT(A), elhi-15/10640/ 2019-20, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel first of all challenges the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction while framing the assessment herein dated 17.12.2019. Irt’s case is that neither the notice nor the Income-tax Officer Ward 43(8), Delhi had been vested with the jurisdiction, who had framed its assessment dated 17.12.2019.
The Revenue, on the other hand, quotes section 124(3) of the Act that once the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings it is very well barred from raising any challenge to the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to this first and foremost issue and find prima facie merits in assessee’s arguments. This is for the precise reason that the case file does not indicate any transfer of jurisdiction by the competent authority (ies) right from the Assessing Officer who had issued section 143(2) notice nor that who framed the assessee, as the case may be. So far as the Revenue’s preliminary jurisdiction u/s 124(3) is concerned, the same admittedly does not deal with the Assessing Officer (s) who finalized the assessment as what is provided therein is that no such question could be raised beyond specified time after section 143(2) notice is received. I, therefore, conclude that the CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion rejecting the assessee’s instant legal ground for the foregoing technical reason is not sustainable in law. It is accordingly reversed and instant appeal is restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his appropriate adjudication, as per law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to a rider that it shall be taxpayer’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic at this stage.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.
Order pronounced in open court on 29.11.2024.