← 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)

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee can question the jurisdiction of the AO, in view of the provisions of section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act or not ? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ITO ward 5(2), Kolkata was having jurisdiction ... facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee can question the jurisdiction of the AO, in view of the provisions of section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act ornot? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ITO ward 5(2), Kolkata was having jurisdiction

Pallavi Kamal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6317/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Pallavi Kamal Shah Ito, Ward-30(1)(1), Mumbai A-601, Bhimsen Chs Ltd., Marve Vs Maharashtra-400051. Road, Malad West, Maharashtra - 400064. [Pan: Avops7447Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 124Section 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xiv)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

assessee recorded that assessment was completed under section 144. The assessee has raised a various grounds of appeal. By referring the provision of section 124(3), the ld. CIT(A) held that assessee has could challenged the jurisdiction of ld. AO within 30 days from the service of notice under

Orchids Diamond Tools (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 19(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2416/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

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

Raghu Alekh Barli, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 915/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that, in view of the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from assailing the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO if such objection is not raised within 30 days from ... precluded from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal. 16. 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

Bikaram Pushpender, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 1606/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that, in view of the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from assailing the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO if such objection is not raised within 30 days from ... precluded from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal. 16. 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

Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy, Nalgonda vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1592/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 132Section 147Section 148

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice ... submitted that in the present case, the assessee as required per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, had within the prescribed time period not called in question the jurisdiction of the ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad, i.e., the JAO, who had issued Notice under Section

Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy, Nalgonda vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1591/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 147Section 148

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice ... submitted that in the present case, the assessee as required per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, had within the prescribed time period not called in question the jurisdiction of the ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad, i.e., the JAO, who had issued Notice under Section

Sanzyme Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 1487/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that, in view of the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from assailing the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO if such objection is not raised within 30 days from ... precluded from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal. 16. 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

Vijay Kumar Patil, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation

ITA 1328/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1328/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Vijay Kumar Patil Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 7(1) Pan:Aqopp2830M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sarang Shah राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: CA Sarang ShahFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 124Section 124(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that, in view of the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from assailing the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO if such objection is not raised within 30 Page ... precluded from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal. 16. 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

Lingamgunta Adilaxmi, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 1317/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that, in view of the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from assailing the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO if such objection is not raised within 30 days from ... precluded from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal. 16. 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

The Ookal Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

ITA 1145/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that, as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO if he does not do Society Limited VS. ITO so within 30 days ... receipt of notice. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present case, the assessee as required per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, had within the prescribed period not called in question the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward 1, Warangal, i.e., the JAO, who had issued

The Ookal Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

ITA 1144/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that, as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO if he does not do Society Limited VS. ITO so within 30 days ... receipt of notice. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present case, the assessee as required per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, had within the prescribed period not called in question the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward 1, Warangal, i.e., the JAO, who had issued

The Ookal Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

ITA 1143/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that, as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO if he does not do Society Limited VS. ITO so within 30 days ... receipt of notice. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present case, the assessee as required per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, had within the prescribed period not called in question the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward 1, Warangal, i.e., the JAO, who had issued

ACIT Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Khadamat Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3766/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250

just for the convenience of the Assessing Officer and / or the Revenue Authorities. Further, as per the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act, at this stage, the Assessee cannot be allowed to raise the objection with regard the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in passing the assessment order

Vikram Brahmendra Satyajit Mulpuri, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 534/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.534/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Vikram Brahmendra Satyajit Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mulpuri, Ward-3(1), Krishna District. Vijayawada. Pan: Aonpm1893G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice ... submitted that in the present case, the assessee as required per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, had within the prescribed time period not called in question the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward 3(1), Vijaywada, i.e., the JAO, who had issued Notice under Section

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

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

ITA 913/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

precluded from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal. 16. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to cull out Section 124(3) of the Act, which reads as under: "124 (1) XXXXXxxx (2) 2000000 (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction ... aside the notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act by the ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhuwaneshwar. Elaborating on the scope of Section 124(3)(a) of the Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed Page 10 of 28 ITA No 913 of 2025 Ankit Jain Hyderabad that

DCIT (Exemptions), Circle 1(1), Hyderabad vs. National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1211/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 124(3)Section 139Section 148

jurisdictional Assessing Officer is not valid when the assessee has not questioned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of section 124(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4.1 The learned CIT(Appeals) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri Ashotosh Pradhan, referring to the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B

Jaya Juneja, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 813/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg, CA & Shri Aayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148A

held that the assessee never challenged the jurisdiction during the assessment proceedings and, in view of section 124(3) of the Act, the ground was not maintainable. Accordingly, this ground was dismissed. Grounds Nos. 2 and 3, challenging the reopening of assessment and alleging non-compliance with the procedure under

Krishnaveni Kokkula, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 558/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 69A

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice ... submitted that in the present case, the assessee as required per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, had within the prescribed time period not called in question the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad i.e., the JAO, who had issued Notice under Section

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 387/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

that as the assessee had not called in question the assumption of jurisdiction by the JAO within the prescribed time period contemplated under section 124(3) of the Act, therefore, he is precluded from challenging the same for the first time in the course of the present proceedings before ... submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in clear and unequivocal terms in its aforesaid order had observed that Section 124(3)(a) precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice. Accordingly