“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 Gunjan Kumar Bihani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (4), Raipur

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

ITA 122/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G) Pan: Ajupb5787C

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

incumbency dated 28.09.2017, 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 ... 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

Gajgamini Investment & Finance P. Ltd.. (Successor to Viloma Equity Services P. Ltd.), Andheri (East) vs. ITO Ward 11(3)(3), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5951/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosaingajgamini Investment & Vs. Ito, Ward 11(3)(3) Finance P. Ltd., 429, 4Th Floor, Aaykar (Successor To Viloma Equity Bhavan, Mk Road, Services P. Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. Office No. 102, A Wing, 1St Floor, Mittal Commercial, Near Mittal Indl. Estate, Andheri Kurla Road – 400059. Pan/Gir No. Aabcg3951A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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

Vishan Gunna, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi, Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3605/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Vishan Gunna, Vs Acit, Plot No.550, House No.- Circle-Int.Tex 1(3)(1), 8-3-293/83/J-Iii, Road New Delhi. No.92, Jubilee Hills, Telangana-500033. Pan-Bmypg5434R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.Mohan Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Abhishek Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

assessment as a petitioner assessee was filing returns with ITO, Ward-21(1) Delhi. Objection as raised were treated made in terms of Section 124(3) despite that there was a delay in non-compliance by the assessee. The ITO, Ward-1(1), NOIDA accepted such a request/prayer

Poonam Sen, Lucknow vs. ITO, Range 1(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 70/LKW/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 Poonam Sen, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/73, Viram Khand, Gomti Range-1(3), Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010 Pan: Bacps7483J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Lucknow Dated 4.08.2020, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito-1(3), Lucknow, Passed Under Section 147/144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Has Erred In Law, In Confirming Order U/S 147/144 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961 In The Present Case As The Notice Issued U/S 148 By The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bareilly (Here-In After Referred To As The Ito, Bareilly) Was Issued Without Any Jurisdiction & Thus As The Notice So Issued U/S 148 Itself Is Issued Without Jurisdiction The Culmination Of The Same In The Present Order Is Void-Ab- Initio & Bad-In-Law & Thus The Order May Kindly Be Annulled. Ii. On The Fact & In The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Present Case The Reasons So Recorded By The Ito, Bareilly Itself Are Vitiated As The Appellant Had Made A True & Fair Disclosure & That The Investment So Made Cannot Be Disclosed In The Return So Filed & Further As Per The Reasons Recorded The Income Escaping Assessment Is Of Rs.65,73,000/- & Whereas The Addition Towards Purchase Has Been Made Of Rs.16,92,000/- Only & Thus The Addition Is Devoid Of Any Merit & Needs To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Grounds Nos. I & Ii Above:

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee had not filed any objection regarding jurisdiction in response to the first set of notices. Thus, according to the provisions of section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act and in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the ld. CIT(A) held that ... that section 124(2) had to be resorted to Suo Moto by the ld. AO without awaiting the objection of the assessee under section 124(3). The ld. AR further submitted that section 124(3) was only applicable for returns under section 139(1) and not against the re-assessment

Aman Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 1, Delhi

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

ITA 660/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

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

Assessing Officer, also hinges upon the legitimacy of this transfer. 10 5. In this context, reliance may be placed on the provisions of Section 124(3)(a) and Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. 6. Section 292B provides that no return of income, assessment, notice, summons, or other proceedings ... proceedings and their consequent orders could not be vitiated on the said ground of mistake, defect or omission in the summons/ notice. 8. Section 124(3) stipulates a bar to any contention about lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act provides

Virendra Gir Goswami, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.411/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Virendra Gir Goswami 85, Hathkhoj, Utai, Durg-491 107 (C.G) Pan: Aljpg4888N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 147Section 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

Shri Bharat Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bharat Patel Prop.- Disha Sales, C/O. V.S. Patel, Umiya Market, Bhanpuri, Raipur-492 009 (C.G.) Pan: Ajmpp6194M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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 5 Shri Bharat Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Raipur (C.G.) Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction

Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 867/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.867/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nalinkant Shyamshanker The Ito बनाम/ Pandya Ward-1 V/S. Ramji Mandir Tekra Godhra – 389 001 Narmada Mandir Chandod, Dabhoi Vadodara – 391 105 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adupp 6004 C (अपीलाथ+/ Appellant) (&, यथ+/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/02/2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2019 Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

proceedings. Under the circumstances, the assessee was precluded from raising the ground of jurisdiction at this stage, in accordance with the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee didn’t file ... Having participated in the assessment proceedings, the assessee is now precluded from raising the objection about jurisdiction, in accordance with the provisions of section 124(3)(6) of the Act. The facts in the case of Pushpa Gupta (supra), relied upon by the assessee, is Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya

Khemraj Sinha, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Khemraj Sinha Proprietor: Jain Kirana Stores, Ganpat Chowk, Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan: Bonps5758B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Kvc Infrastructures, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 266/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 124(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 249(3)Section 282Section 44A

Jurisdictional Change: The assessment was passed by ACIT, Circle 2(1), without prior notice of jurisdictional change from DCIT, Circle 3(1), violating Section 124(3) and principles of natural justice. 3. Invalid Service of Notices: Notices and the assessment order were sent to an unregistered email ID, violating Rule

Iqbal Shaik, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward International Taxation, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 67/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Kranthi Palivela And CA, MrudulathaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 127Section 129Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

also has not raised any objection over the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the assessee cannot question the jurisdiction in terms of section 124(3)(b) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, there is 11 ITA.No.67/Hyd./2025 no merit in the legal ground taken by the assessee ... Assessing Officer, in our considered view, the assessee cannot now question the jurisdiction at this stage. Further, as per the provisions of section 124(3)(b) of the Act, where an assessee has not filed return after expiry of the time allowed in the notice under section

Jaiprakash Yadav, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

Officer during the assessment proceedings. The issue of entitlement to challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer is governed by the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as under: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction ... return of income within the time allowed in the notice u/s 148 or notice u/s 144 of the Act. Consequently, in terms of section 124(3)(b) of the Act, the assessee is barred from challenging the Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer after the expiry of the time specified

Arjun Rishi, Sainik Farms vs. ITO Ward 28(1), ITO Office Civic Centre

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

ITA 3020/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanarjun Rishi, Vs. Ito, Ward 28 (1), F – 79/18, Sainik Farms, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Agvpr4625D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arun Kishore, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is 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 01.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. I) That The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,81,173/- Made By Ld. Ao Ward 28(1) Delhi Is Illegal, Unjust, Opposed To Facts & Suffers From The Vice Of Arbitrariness. Ii) That All Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 127Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

grossly erred in dismissing the additional grounds for invalid notice u/s 143(2) by referring to section 124(3), ignoring the fact that the issue goes to the root cause of the matter and the assessment is to be annulled. 5 That on the facts of the case ... within two months. He submitted 7 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

Gouri Shankar Goyal, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Siliguri

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

ITA 1748/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathangouri Shankar Goyal Vs Acit, Circle-1, Siliguri C/O Omprakash Agarwal(Goyal) Agrasen Road, Khalpara, Siliguri-734005 Pan No. :Adgpg 0529 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Girdhar Dhelia, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Girdhar Dhelia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

Circle-1, Siliguri does not have jurisdiction over the assessee. Here, the challenge to the jurisdiction is also affected by the provision of Section 124(3) of the Act. The assessee is to call in question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer within one month from the issuance of notice ... remain silent, cannot now raise the ground challenging the jurisdiction as the said challenge is barred 6 ITANo.1748/KOL/2024 by the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act. Here it is also worthwhile to refer to Explanation to Section 120(1) of the Act. There are multiple circulars issued

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2472/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

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 that the same precluded the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction