“Section 124(3)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 124Section 124(3)(a)106 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 124(3)(a)

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)(a)

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

objections to jurisdiction were not entertained being time barred because the Assessee in that case failed to timely challenge the jurisdiction as per Section 124(3)(a) of the Act. However, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. 22. In the present case, the very initiation ... complete absence of jurisdiction in violation of CBDT guidelines or direction as issued u/s 120 of the Act. 23. Further, according to Section 124(3)(c) of the Act, the Assessee has the right to object to the jurisdiction at any time within one month from the date the notice

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 505/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

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

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

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

Kusum Dube, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7444/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54F

under section 143(2) of the Act by the ITO, Ward-1(4), Dibrugarh during the one month; the prescribed time limit under section 124(3) of the Act. c. The appellant/assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and never questioned the jurisdiction and validity of the notice issued under section ... been raised by the appellant before the ITO, Dibgrugarh or before the ITO, Gurgaon during the course of assessment proceeding. As per Section 124(3)(a), no person can challenge the jurisdiction after one month from the date of service of notice w/s 143(2) and 142(1). In this

Assistantcommissionerof Incometax, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. M/S. Anubandh Financial Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2390/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

assessee had not agitated this issue before the Ld. AO. In this respect it is relevant to refer to the provision of section 124(3)(a) of the Act which is reproduced as under: “124(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing ... 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 I.T.A. No.: 2390/KOL/2024 C.O. No.: 5/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Anubandh Financial

Bhuwaneshwar Shukla, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of accordingly

ITA 142/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 141 & 142/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhuwaneshwar Shukla Lig 12/06, Mansarowar Colony, Shiv Mandir, Bhilai-3, Durg-490 021 Pan: Ccips5734D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Durg ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 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 7 Bhuwaneshwar Shukla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai ITA Nos. 141 & 142/RPR/2025 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- (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 115WD or sub- section (1) of Section

Bhuwaneshwar Shukla, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of accordingly

ITA 141/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(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

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

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)

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