M/S JALAN JEE POLITEX LTD,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 174/ALLD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi14 October 2022AY 2005-20061 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was framed by an officer of incompetent jurisdiction, making it void ab initio. The alleged order under section 127 was also considered non-existent as it was not confronted to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals are against assessment orders passed under section 264 r.w.s. 144/153A for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07. The assessee is regularly assessed in Gorakhpur, but the assessment order was passed by an officer in Varanasi.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the jurisdiction of the assessing officer and the validity of the transfer of jurisdiction order under Section 127.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 144,Section 153A,Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI

Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

Hearing: 24.08.2022Pronounced: 14.10.2022

PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders of the CIT(A) both dated 19.04.2016 arising out from the assessment orders passed under section 264 r.w.s. 144/153A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. The assesse has raised the common grounds in both these appeals. Grounds raised for the assessment year 2005-06 are reproduced as under:- “1. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of assessment having being framed by an officer of incompetent jurisdiction is liable to be quashed as void ab-initio; the assessee is regularly assessed to income tax at Gorakhpur whereas the assessment order is passed by an officer at Varanasi, as confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A).

2.

Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the alleged order u/s 127 dated 10/02/2011, being made against the statutory provisions of section 127 is nonest in the eyes of law as the same was never confronted to the assessee.

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →