FEJOURE INTERNATIONAL,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

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.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.