← All Phrases

“Section 124(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 124Section 124(3)270 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 124(3) is CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale (124 ITR 391), cited in 181 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 124(3)

CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale
124 ITR 391 · 1980 · High Court
181
citing judgments

An Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act that widens the scope of the provision, rather than merely clarifying it, cannot be applied retrospectively to assessment periods prior to its effective date. Assessments must be made according to the law in force at the relevant time.

Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd.
124 Taxmann.com 249 · 2021 · Supreme Court
105
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice issued under Section 274 fails to specifically mention whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer must specify the exact charge for the penalty to be valid.

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

CIT v. Piara Singh
124 ITR 40 · 1980 · Supreme Court
95
citing judgments

When dealing with unaccounted transactions of purchase and sale, including those from an illegal business, only the profit or income earned from such sales can be assessed as undisclosed income and subjected to tax, not the entire sale proceeds.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramesh D. Patel
362 ITR 492 · 2014 · High Court
91
citing judgments

Section 124(3) of the Income-tax Act, which restricts an assessee from objecting to an Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, applies only to disputes concerning territorial jurisdiction as conferred by Section 120(1) or (2). It does not apply to objections regarding the Assessing Officer's inherent jurisdiction to frame an assessment.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court
89
citing judgments

A penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied if an assessee files a revised return to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the revenue accepts this without objection.

Abhishek Jain v. ITO
94 Taxmann.com 355 · 2018 · High Court
89
citing judgments

An assessee cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer if an objection is not filed within the prescribed one-month period from the date of receiving a notice. Failure to raise a timely objection under Section 124 before the AO waives the right to dispute jurisdiction later.

(i) CIT v. Focus Exports (P.) Ltd.
51 Taxmann.com 46 · 2014 · High Court
81
citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits or share application money is not permissible if the assessee satisfactorily explains the identity and creditworthiness of the investor and the genuineness of the transaction.

Judgments citing Section 124(3)

Sadhika Ganni, Rajahmundry vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Rajahmundry

ITA 205/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Rajamahendravaram, within the statutory period of one month from the date of service of receipt of the notice as provided under Section 124(3)(a) of the Act, therefore, he was thereafter debarred from subsequently calling in question the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing ... assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Section 124(3)(a) precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice

Jayesh Kanungo HUF, Khetwadi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6855/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Bijayananda Prusethjayesh Kanungo Huf Ito -19(2)(1), Mumbai 203, Rajgiri Apartment, A Wing, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 13Thkhetwadi Back Road, Mumbai Parel Mumbai 400012 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabhj8492E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar Singh a/w. Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri. Nakul Agrawal Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142 (1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act precludes the assessee from 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 142(1). In the present case

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada vs. Chagantipadu Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Noh957, Chagantipadu Village

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the

ITA 641/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

duly followed while issuing notice under section 148 of the Act and while completing the assessment. By referring to the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act, the Ld. DR submitted that any objection against the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer can be raised only within the period ... submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has held that, as per the mandate of section 124(3) of the Act, the assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer if he does not do so within a period of 30 days

Kuldip Kumar Goel, Delhi vs. ACIT(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above

ITA 3285/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanand

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 250

under: “6. There is another consideration which is also relevant. Section 124 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officers. Section 124(3) provides that within the limits of the area assigned to him the Income Tax Officer shall have jurisdiction— (a) in respect of any person ... notice be said to be necessary, nor would it be necessary to record any reasons for the transfer. The provisions contained in Section 124(3) of the Act deal with the same topic which was the subject-matter of Section 64(1) and (2) of the earlier Income

Jagdish Kumar Yadav, Durg vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 593/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.593/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jagdish Kumar Yadav Near Boudh Vihar Near To S.V Public School, Shankar Nagar, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aakpy0660J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

eyes of law. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently submitted that as per Section 124(3)(a) of the Act, if the assessee had any objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, then the same could have been raised within one month from ... assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, then Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within

Venkata Sujatha Chruvupalli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR
Section 124(3)(a)Section 127(2)Section 129Section 143(2)

issued by the non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer but not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), the provisions of section 124(3)(a) or 127(4) does not come into play and therefore the impugned assessment order is invalid due to want of assuming valid jurisdiction ... within the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2 and hence notice was sent by the Office of Respondent No. 2. He further referred to Section 124(3)(a) of the Act and contended that the Petitioner ought to have questioned the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2 immediately after receiving the notice

Ankit Jain, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle -1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1545/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

precluded from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal. 14. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to cull out Section 124(3) of the Act, which reads as under: "124 (1) xxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxx (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction

Ankit Jain, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1544/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

precluded from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal. 14. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to cull out Section 124(3) of the Act, which reads as under: "124 (1) xxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxx (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction

Rashid Hussain, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1322/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 37(1)

precluded from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal. 14. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to cull out Section 124(3) of the Act, which reads as under: "124 (1) xxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxx (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction

New Star System Solution Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-18(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 3585/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

required to be quashed as void ab initio. When this was confronted to learned DR, he pointed out to the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act wherein it was mentioned that assessee should challenge within one month about the jurisdiction of the AO on receipt of the notice ... challenged the jurisdiction of the learned AO. In our considered opinion, this argument of the learned DR is wrong in as much as section 124(3) of the Act talks only about territorial jurisdiction, whereas the issue involved here is pecuniary jurisdiction. Further, the provisions of section 124(3

Kunshan Q Tech Microelectronics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

ITA 5356/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 148Section 153

conferring power upon Addl. CIT. Therefore, this Judgment would not support the case of the Revenue. It maybe noted further that provisions of Section 124(3) of the LT. Act would not be applicable in the case of the assessee because Addl. CIT, Range-23, New Delhi did not have ... vide order dated 20.03.2024 has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by observing as under: "6. In our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act and the questions surrounding that provision would have warranted further consideration, provided the appellant had been able to establish that

R A Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2275/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Akash Deep Singla, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8105/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Akash Deep Singla, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of M1422A, The Magnolias 22Nd Income Tax, Floor, Golf Course Road, Central Circel-1, Dlf City Phase-V, Faridabad Wazirabad (75), Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 003 Pan: Aecps0363N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 119Section 124Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

required to be quashed as void ab initio. When this was confronted to learned DR, he pointed out to the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act wherein it was mentioned that assessee should challenge within one month about the jurisdiction of the AO on receipt of the notice ... challenged the jurisdiction of the learned AO. In our considered opinion, this argument of the learned DR is wrong in as much as section 124(3) of the Act talks only about territorial jurisdiction, whereas the issue involved here is pecuniary jurisdiction. Further, the provisions of section 124(3

Abc India Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1645/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) Abc India Limited Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 40/8, Ballygunj Circular Road Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 119Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Hanuman Agro Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1306/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1306/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Hanuman Agro Industries, Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Nicco House 6Th Floor, 2 Hare Street Kolkata, West Bengal-700001 Pan No. :Aaach 6578 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.05.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Assessment Order Of Page 1 Of First Line Wherein The It Is Mentioned That The Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Originally Was Filed On 31.10.2018. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed A Revised Return On 19.03.2019, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,64,350/-. It Was The Submission That The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-1(2) Has Passed The Assessment Order. It Was The Submission That The Notice U/S.148 Of The Act In The Impugned Assessment Year Was Issued On 25.03.2025 By The Acit, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Notice Which Is Shown At Page 9 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows :-

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन

Manish Berlia, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2586/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR
Section 120

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन

Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

sections 124 (4) and 124 (2) have been rendered redundant in this case and the present case is squarely hit by provisions of section 124(3)(a) and 124(3)(c) as well, whereby the assessee has forgone its entitlement to question the jurisdiction

Yadiki Pacs, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anantapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 926/HYD/2025[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026

Bench: the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad rejecting the appellant's application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the subject AY 2019-20 is pending for disposal as on date. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act in consequence to the above." 3

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 80ASection 80P

further held that the objection regarding lack of jurisdiction could not be entertained at the appellate stage in view of Section 124(3) of the Act and conflicting judicial precedents on the issue of faceless reassessment. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of deduction under Section

Rajroop Doshi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR
Section 124(3)Section 127Section 127(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Instruction No. 1/2011 and relevant notifications. However, this objection was not raised before the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings. Under Section 124(3) of the Act, any objection to the jurisdiction must be raised within one month from the issuance of notice under Section

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan Bkc vs. Svadeshi Enterprises (Mumbai), Fort, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5865/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay & Nishil Jain, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)

first appellate authority also. He submitted that income has to be assessed and income alone cannot be considered for jurisdiction. He relied on section 124 (3) of the Act as per which assessee has to file objections within two months. In this regard, he relied on the decision ... required to be quashed as void ab initio. When this was confronted to learned DR, he pointed out to the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act wherein it was mentioned that assessee should challenge within one month about the jurisdiction of the AO on receipt of the notice