SH. AVINASH PANWAR,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1709/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked proper jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment and impose the penalty. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored to the appropriate officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income exceeding Rs. 5 Crore. The Assessing Officer (ITO) assumed jurisdiction, which the assessee challenged, arguing it was partly illegal based on departmental instructions regarding jurisdiction limits. The ITO also imposed a penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer had the correct jurisdiction to initiate proceedings and impose a penalty when the returned income exceeded the prescribed limits for his territorial jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 120,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c),Section 124(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Raja Kumar,Adv
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi DR
Hearing: 16.02.2016

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Both the appeals are preferred by the assessee. I.T.A. No.

1.

1709 pertains to assessment year 2009-10 and is preferred against the order dated 11.03.2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut. also pertains to assessment year 2009- 10 and is preferred against order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the I.T.A. 6668/D/14, 1709/D/13., Stay 518/D/2015 Assessment Year 2009-10 Ld. CIT(A), Meerut confirming penalty of Rs.1,55,00,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). Since both the appeals were heard together, they are being disposed of through this common order.

2.

In , the assessee has taken legal ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to take up the assessee’s case. He has also challenged the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) on merits. However, we deem it fit to adjudicate on the legal issue at the threshold before proceeding to hear both the parties on merits. Ground nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal are as under:-

“1. That Ld. A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) to hold that I.T.O. is having jurisdiction of the case which was filed by the assessee more than Rs. 5 Crore and the assessee filed the return before A.C.I.T.. Circle 1, Meerut. Therefore, assumption of jurisdiction without transferring the case by CIT, Meerut. Ld. I.T.O. assumed jurisdiction and continued the proceeding U/s 148/143(3) is void ab-initio because the A.O. never having jurisdiction u/s 120 of I.T. Act hence, assessment framed by the A.O is without jurisdiction and bad in law.

2. That Ld. CIT(A), Meerut is in error in holding that the assessee can make objection u/s 124(3) before A.O. is misinterpretation of the provision because if issuance of notice U/s 148 void ab-initio then there is no need to make objection.”

I.T.A. 6668/D/14, 1709/D/13., Stay 518/D/2015 Assessment Year 2009-10 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed his Return of Income showing a total income of Rs. 5,31,88,771/- and, therefore, in terms of Instruction No. 1/2011[F No.187/12/2010- IT(A-17)] dated 31.1.2011, the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was only upto Rs. 15.00 of returned income and accordingly, the assumption of jurisdiction by I.T.O. Ward 1(1), Meerut was partly illegal.

4.

As far as was concerned, the penalty was also imposed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Meerut which again was without jurisdiction and hence void.

5.

The Ld. DR in all fairness agreed that both the matters should be restored to the officer having jurisdiction over the case.

6.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders in both the appeals and restore the matter to the file of ACIT, Meerut for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee due opportunity of being heard.

7.

The grounds of appeal on merits are dismissed as having become infructuous. As far as the petition of stay is concerned, the same is also dismissed as having become infructuous.

8.

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed. 3 I.T.A. 6668/D/14, 1709/D/13., Stay 518/D/2015 Assessment Year 2009-10 Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16.05.2016.

More judgments on Section 120

All 212 judgments and leading authorities on Section 120 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →