“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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Shri. Rahul Udayashankar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 869/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 11Section 143Section 250Section 69A

officers as mentioned therein with a further stipulation on the Officers who can decide such question when it relates to different jurisdiction. Section 124[3] prescribes the time limit. Where a return is filed under Section 115WD[1] or under Section 139(1], an Assessee cannot call in question ... 124[1] relate to the territorial jurisdiction and determination of the questions relating to territorial jurisdiction when raised within the time limit under Section 124[3] by the officers mentioned in Section 124[2]. The provisions of Section 124 stipulate that when an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction

Smita Biswas, Jalpaiguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 127(1)Section 143(2)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “एसएमसी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

M/S Creative World Telefilms Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

ITA 1651/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Section 124Section 127Section 129Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

raised this objection before the ld. AO that he did not have proper jurisdiction which he should have in terms of section 124(3). In so far as ground lack of issuance of notice u/s.129, is also ill-conceived, because there is no change of incumbent. Accordingly, the grounds

Prakash Chand Jain, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 232/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 232/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prakash Chand Jain Pro. Jain Borewell Ganj Road, Nawapara-Rajim, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)-493 881 Pan : Affpj6898B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151(1)Section 68

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 questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within

M/S. G.P. Infraventures, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Raipur

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 94/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

notice dated 30.07.2016, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to raise objection over the jurisdiction of the AO as per provision of section 124(3) of the Act. For sake of convenience, the said section is reproduced below: - "Section: 124(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question ... that the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction only in order to escape from tax liability arising from assessment proceeding. Further, the provisions of Section 124(3) are very clear. Where the appellant is of the view that the jurisdiction is not justifiable, the appellant is free to challenge the same

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur vs. Mesers G P Infraventures, Raipur

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 76/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

M/S. Vinayak Agro Industries, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward-4, Rourkela

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri N.K.Rout, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

same is liable to be upheld. It was further submission of the ld. Sr. DR that in view of the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act, it was incumbent upon the assessee to file its objections, if any, within one month from the date of issue ... have considered the rival submissions. At the outset, the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR that the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act would apply, would not hold water, insofar as the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act is in regard to the challenge

M/S. Vinayak Agro Industries, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward-4, Rourkela

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri N.K.Rout, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

Venkata Satyanarayana Dasari, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 188/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kamaj Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued U/s. 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. 6 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

Shri Arun Agrawal, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 214/RPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 214/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Arun Agrawal 85, Pandri Textile Market, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan :Acjpa2323D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

assessee denied that the said transactions were neither related to him nor done by him, but he never challenged the jurisdiction. e) 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 ... following judgements : (i) In the case of Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO, It is held by Hon'ble Delhi HC that "In terms of section 124(3)(b) jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by an assessee after expiry of one month from date on which

Aameen Belim, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the ground no

ITA 571/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 124(3)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 69

filed any return of income in response to the notice u/s 148.,. Upholding the validity of assessment order on the of provision of section 124(3)(b)and section 292B is erroneous and contrary to the provision of Law. Assessment framed u/s143(3) in consequence to the notice issued u/s143 ... thus, the question of examining the return, filed in response to notice u/s148, before issuance of notice u/s143(2) is not relevant anymore. Section — 124(3)(b), Income-tax Act, 1961-2018 is worth mentioning here which reads a under: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question

Bharat Bhushan Verma, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of the observations above

ITA 236/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 236/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bharat Bhushan Verma Main Road, Verma Transport Bharat, Baikunth, P.O.-Baikunth, Raipur (C.G.)-493 116 Pan : Acdpv7254J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Oficer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

Raipur. Thus, the assessee is not entitled to call in question the jurisdiction as per provision of section 124(3) of the Act. For sake of convenience, the said section is reproduced below:- "Section: 124(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing ... challenged the jurisdiction only in order to escape from tax liability on account of issue arisen during review proceeding. Further, the provisions of Section 124(3) are very clear. Where the appellant is of the view that the jurisdiction is not justifiable, the appellant is free to challenge the same

Sh. Sachin Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 3, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Shri Sachin Sharma, Vs Ito, C/O-Umang Sahai Aggarwal, Adv., Ward-3, 505, Maitri Apartment, Opp. Metro Bhiwani. Pillar No.411, Sector-09, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Pan-Bnyps6223F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri U.S.Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.09.2023 Order

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

order as to costs. 6. It is submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had never raised any such objection. As per section 124(3)(a), no person can challenge the jurisdiction after one month from the date of service of notice ... Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CWT vs. Sini Paul Oswal (2007) 293 ITR 273. Referring to the provisions of section 124(3), it is submitted that no person can challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer after one month from the date of service of notice

Balmukund M Vaishnav, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

ITA 205/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

M/S. Maa Tarani Logistics Ltd, Joda vs. ACIT Cir.-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & JaydeepFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 1aSection 234Section 68

appeal raised by the assessee was dismissed' P a g e 14 | 20 Assessment Year : 2012-13 f) Even otherwise the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act will come into play and reliance is placed on the following decisions: i.) Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case

Aruna Tiwari, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

question the jurisdiction as per provision of section 142(3) of the Act. For sake of convenience, the said section is reproduced below:- "Section: 124(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return under ... challenged the jurisdiction only in order to escape from tax liability on account of issue arisen during review proceeding. Further, the provisions of Section 124(3) are very clear. Where the appellant is of the view that the jurisdiction is not justifiable, the appellant is free to challenge the same

Satya Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3024/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

assessee was waiting for time limitation to expire and, therefore the Hon'ble High Court held that in terms of section 124(3)(b), the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by an assessee after the expiry of one month from the date on which

Rati Ram, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3023/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

Satyabir Singh Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3022/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

Mickey Shrivastva, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194C(5)Section 253Section 40a

assessee with respect to challenging the jurisdiction of the AO which was not challenged before the AO under the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act within the stipulated time period of one month from the date of which the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was served upon