← All Phrases

“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
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)(a)

Natarajan, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Itward-1(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 123/CHNY/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

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

Tirupati Jewels, Kailash Colonny New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 30(6), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Tirupati Jewels Vs Ito Tirupati Jewels K-12, Kailash Ward- 30 (6) Colony New Delhi-110048, Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aajft4161A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

provisions of the Act disable an assessee from contending that in the given circumstances the AO lacks jurisdiction; rather Section 124(3) limits the availability of those options at the threshold. The assessee upon receipt of notice of the kind mentioned in Clause (a) and (b) of sub-section 3 ... such objections are to be articulated at the threshold or at the earlier points of time. The two points of time specified in Section 124(3)(a) are as under: (i) Within one month from the date of service of notice or; (ii) After completion of assessment - whichever is earlier

Netherlands Operating Company B.V., Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Taxation 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1198/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1198/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Netherlands Operating Company B.V. The Acit, Rmz Millenia (Phase-1), International Taxation -2(1), Business Park, 4Th Floor, Campus 1C, Chennai. 11, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. [Pan: Aabcl 0573 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)(b)Section 147Section 148

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 ... under section 142(1)." 4.10 Section 124(3)(a) reads as under: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or under sub-section (1) of section

Mundhra Construction P Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 124(3)(a)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A

Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 956/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Supreme Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC), that Section 124(3)(a) of the I.T. Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO, if he does not do so within 30 days of the receipt

Purshottam Leelaram Ubhrani, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane, Mumbai

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

ITA 2611/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 124(3)(a)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Prudential Management Advisors Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 719/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 719/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Prudential Management Assistant Commissioner Of Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Suite No. 10, 5Th Floor Shantiniketan Building 8, Camac Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaecp2505Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) To Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.6,34,50,000/- On Account Of Loss On Sale Of Investments Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.25,33,00,386/- On Account Of Sundry Creditors U/S 41(1) Of The Act Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 41(1)

DCIT (Exemption) vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology reported in [2023] 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that Section 124(3)(a) of the Act precludes the assessee from 5 I.T.A. No. 719/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Prudential Management Advisors Pvt. Ltd. questioning ... above ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is applicable on the assessee also because Section 124(3)(a) of the Act refers to various notices including those issued u/s 143(2) of the Act also and, therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down

Addl CIT R G 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd ( Formerly Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd. ), Mumbai

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner and not by the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 124(3)(b). Thus, the ITAT cannot entertain this ground of appeal on jurisdiction and it is a matter which can only be decided u/s 124(3 ... Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner and not by the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 124(3)(b). Thus, the ITAT cannot entertain this ground of appeal on jurisdiction and it is a matter which can only be decided u/s 124(3

Swatantravir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Nashik

Accordingly. The assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.881/PUN./2023 is dismissed in above terms

ITA 882/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 124(3)(a)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 80A(5)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.881 & 882/PUN

Swatantravir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Nashik

Accordingly. The assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.881/PUN./2023 is dismissed in above terms

ITA 881/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 124(3)(a)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 80A(5)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.881 & 882/PUN

Staark Accessories Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 13(2)(2)

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

ITA 2418/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin S. Chhag, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 44A

service of notice." (Annexure D) Without prejudice to the above this additional ground should not be allowed at this stage as section 124(3) specifically bars a person from raising question about jurisdiction of AO after expiry of 1 month from the date of service of notice under section ... section, 124(3)(a) no person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an assessing officer, where he has made a return under sec 139 (1), after the expiry of 1 month from the date on which he was served a notice under section

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

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

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

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

ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi vs. Vista Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2015/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 124(3)(a)Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 163Section 263

quashed the assessment order under consideration on the basis of dispute raised by the assessee over the jurisdiction which is contrary to section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee has not challenged the jurisdiction before A.O during the course of assessment proceeding. 3 ... Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, learned CIT-DR by taking ground no.2 referred to section 124(3)(a) of the Act and submitted that assessee never raised the issue of jurisdiction as contained in the said section within the time 7 ITA No.2015/Del/2021

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Communication Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

128/2016 and allowed the appeal of the Revenue holding that the order passed by the Addl. CIT was within jurisdiction quoting provision to Section 124(3)(a) of I.T Act where it is mentioned that the assessee cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the AO where he has made a return