“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)

M/S. Hillview Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1758/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1758 & 1759/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2016-17 M/S. Hillview Renewable Power Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Income Tax/Dc, Narne Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Central Circle 1(2), Manikonda, Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan:Aadch3040D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1760 & 1761/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17 M/S. Magnolia Ecopower Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm9358C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Chetan Orchardes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcc7086L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153A

search authorization, the Tribunal correctly held that assessment orders under section 153A could not have been passed. Reliance of the Revenue to section 124(3) of the Act would be of no avail. Section 124 pertains to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officers. Sub-section (1) thereof concerns the situation where

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 5984/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

case of Abhishek Jain vs ITO reported in (2018) 94 taxmann.com 355,wherein,Hon'ble Court analysed provision of section 127 read with section 124(3), notwithstanding the fact that there was a delay in raising the objection. Therefore, the objection to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer cannot

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the years stands partly allowed

ITA 5983/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 5982/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Kanpur vs. Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/LKW/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.8/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2 V. Shri Jagdish Prasad Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Gupta Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. 16, Tara Chand Dutta Street, Kolkata-700073. Pan:Aczpg0723F अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Ca सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12 08 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 31 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, CA

Section 124(3)Section 127Section 143(3)

erred in quashing the assessment proceedings and holding the assessment null and void on the technical ground by ignoring the statutory provisions of section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the above ground is without prejudice to each other and appellant craves leave

Rakshit Estates Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3615/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrarakshit Estates Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hsiidc Limited. Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Plot No. 11, Basement, J 2.1, Udhyogvihar, Phase-V, Sector 83, Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aagcr0135G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ramesh Chander, Adv Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2025

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

further submitted that the assessee never raised any objection to jurisdiction during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO. As per Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act, no challenge to jurisdiction is maintainable after one month from thedate of service of the first notice ... further submitted that the assessee fully cooperated in assessment and never raised objection to jurisdiction or notice at any stage. As per Section 124(3) of the Act. any objection to jurisdiction must be raised within one monthfrom the date of the first notice. The assessee never objected during

Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.168/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (Hybrid Hearing) Depesh Vishnu Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- Vs. Road, Surat-395 007 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Depesh Vishnu Agarwal बनाम/ 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. Vs. 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa 2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

much after the statutory period of one month from the issue of the notices. The CIT(A) has rightly referred to provisions of section 124(3) of the Act which disentitles a person to call in question the jurisdiction of an AO after the expiry of one month from

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat vs. Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

Krish Wines, Jalgaon vs. ACIT Circle 1, Jalgaon

ITA 2098/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 69A

notice u/s 143(2) either before him or before the CIT(A) / NFAC and has participated in such assessment proceedings. The provisions of section 124(3)(a) and 124(4) of the Act read as under: “124(1)..... (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction

Om Prakash Bansal (HUF), Naya Baz Delhiar vs. Ac Circle 46(1) New Delhi, New Delh

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

ITA 2984/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaom Prakash Bansal (Huf), Vs. Acit, Circle 46(1), 3990, F/F, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aabho0485L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shir Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)) Dated 19.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Application For Admission Of Additional Grounds Of Appeal Wherein Following Additional Grounds Of Appeal Are Raised :-

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shir Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

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

Naveen Kumar Musinipally, Usa vs. ADIT (Int-Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly

ITA 323/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Mahavir Pukhraj Jain, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 379/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalmahavir Pukhraj Jain Vs. Dcit, Circle – 42(1)(1) Flat No. 603/B, Manan Kautilya Bhawan, Apartment, New Link Road, Aenue -3, Near Videsh Dahisar East, Mumbai – Bhavan, G-Block, Bkc 400068. Bandra (E) – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Adepj8540R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 124(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assess any person, the question will have to be determined by the authorities specified which will include, in a given case the Board. Section 124(3) then provides that no person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, where an action has been taken

Suhasit Star Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-15(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and that of

ITA 4623/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla,AR (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

system i.e. the PAN lies with ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai since 22.09.2020. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently submitted that as per section 124(3)(a) of the Act, if the assessee had any objection regarding the jurisdiction of the AO, then the same could have been raised within ... assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the AO, then section 124(3)(a) of the Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 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) (α) precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 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) precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sneh Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2141/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 195

going through these decisions, we find that these two cases involved dispute over territorial jurisdiction between the two AOs wherein by virtue of section 124(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble High Court has held that such objections should be raised at the threshold. However, the assessment ... liberty to prefer regular appeal route before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee’s challenge was not circumscribed by the restriction under Section 124(3) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) has accordingly taken the same into consideration and the findings, thus, require no interference. 7. In the light

Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sneh Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2140/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 195

Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sneh Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2139/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 195

Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sneh Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2138/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 195