← All Phrases

“Section 120(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 120Section 120(2)19 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 120(2) is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramesh D. Patel (362 ITR 492), cited in 91 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 120(2)

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.

DCIT v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology
151 Taxmann.com 434 · 2023 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

An assessee who participates in assessment proceedings without challenging the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, particularly concerning a Section 148 notice for reassessment, cannot subsequently dispute that jurisdiction.

CIT v. Varas International
284 ITR 80 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit additional legal grounds for the first time, even if not raised earlier, provided these grounds are purely legal, go to the root of the matter, and the relevant facts for their adjudication are already on record.

CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd.
318 ITR 116 · 2009 · High Court
64
citing judgments

When the valuation of closing stock is adjusted to include CENVAT or Modvat credit under Section 145A, a corresponding adjustment must also be made to the opening stock.

CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416
110 ITR 453 · 1977 · High Court
62
citing judgments

An Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot reach a conclusion contrary to an earlier decision by another bench of the same Tribunal on identical facts, as the Tribunal acts as a consistent institution regardless of changes in its members.

CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd.
297 ITR 77 · 2008 · High Court
58
citing judgments

When the Assessing Officer revalues the closing stock, the opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis to ensure consistency in the method of accounting and proper computation of business income.

Page 10 of 15 of Income Tax v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal
345 ITR 29 · 2012 · High Court
56
citing judgments

Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a rule of evidence that validates service of notice in certain circumstances. It introduces a deeming fiction that if an assessee appears in any proceeding or cooperates in any inquiry relating to assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any required notice was duly served, precluding objection to such service.

West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range
278 ITR 218 · 2005 · High Court
54
citing judgments

A question of law concerning the root of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. A defect of jurisdiction is incurable, and jurisdiction, which cannot be conferred by default or agreement, is determined by its initiation date and operates prospectively, not retrospectively.

Judgments citing Section 120(2)

Kunshan Q Tech Microelectronics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

ITA 5356/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 148Section 153

case of Mega Corpn. Ltd., (supra), in which it is mentioned in para-2 that on 01.08.2007, a Notification was issued under section 120(2) conferring power upon Addl. CIT. Therefore, this Judgment would not support the case of the Revenue. It maybe noted further that provisions of Section

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

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

ITA 509/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

applied, because Section 124(3) of the Act provides limitation for jurisdiction which was assigned as per Section 120(2) and which is to be challenged. Thus, the complete absence of jurisdiction is not protected by Section 124(3) of the Act. Therefore, the provision of Section

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

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

ITA 508/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

applied, because Section 124(3) of the Act provides limitation for jurisdiction which was assigned as per Section 120(2) and which is to be challenged. Thus, the complete absence of jurisdiction is not protected by Section 124(3) of the Act. Therefore, the provision of Section

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

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

ITA 507/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

applied, because Section 124(3) of the Act provides limitation for jurisdiction which was assigned as per Section 120(2) and which is to be challenged. Thus, the complete absence of jurisdiction is not protected by Section 124(3) of the Act. Therefore, the provision of Section

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

applied, because Section 124(3) of the Act provides limitation for jurisdiction which was assigned as per Section 120(2) and which is to be challenged. Thus, the complete absence of jurisdiction is not protected by Section 124(3) of the Act. Therefore, the provision of Section

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

applied, because Section 124(3) of the Act provides limitation for jurisdiction which was assigned as per Section 120(2) and which is to be challenged. Thus, the complete absence of jurisdiction is not protected by Section 124(3) of the Act. Therefore, the provision of Section

Karan Motors Private Limited, Janakpuri, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 27, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarkaran Motors Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, A3-44, Third Floor, Central Circle-27, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaack0039L Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 120(2)Section 120(4)Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 19(1)Section 19(6)Section 2

Assessing Officer and as such, he did not have the jurisdiction to make the assessment since the order granting him jurisdiction under Section 120(2) and Section 120(4) was not passed, as is evident from the assessment order for the impugned assessment year, hence assessment is illegal, invalid ... Income Tax vs. Mega Corporation Ltd., (supra), in which it is mentioned in para-2 that on 01.08.2007, a Notification was issued under section 120(2) conferring power upon Addl. CIT. Therefore, this Judgment would not support the case of the Revenue. It may be noted further that provisions

Dolphin Promoters and Builders, Raipur vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Raipur

ITA 58/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 68Section 801B(10)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी रिवश सूद, "ाियक सद" एवं

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

High Court in para 2 has noted that "the ITAT, however, considered the material on record, including the notification dated 01.08.2007, under Section 120(2) and proceeded to hold that in the absence of specific notification under section 120(4)(b), the ACIT could not have acted ... Para 5 of the decision) (ii) Reference to an incorrect provision per se cannot invalidate the authority conferred in the present case under section 120(2) instead of section 120(4)(b). Hence, the assessee's argument that the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (ACIT) did not possess jurisdiction, cannot

Vijay Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3033/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

some other ward who may be vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of orders issued under Section 120(1) or Section 120(2) of the Act will not make a difference to the above legal position. The reason is not far to seek. It is only the Assessing Officer

Hariom, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3032/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

some other ward who may be vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of orders issued under Section 120(1) or Section 120(2) of the Act will not make a difference to the above legal position. The reason is not far to seek. It is only the Assessing Officer

Raj Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3031/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

some other ward who may be vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of orders issued under Section 120(1) or Section 120(2) of the Act will not make a difference to the above legal position. The reason is not far to seek. It is only the Assessing Officer

M/S. Islamic Academy of Education, Mangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Bangalore

ITA 610/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 12A

accordance with the directions of the CBDT for exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by those authorities. Section 120(2) of the Act, empowers the CBDT to issue directions under which Income tax authorities may authorize other income tax authorities who are subordinate to such income

M/S. Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-Operative Societies Union Limited, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

ITA 1355/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Page 1 of 23 ITA Nos. 1354 & 1355/Bang/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

M/S. Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-Operative Societies Union Limited, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue stands dismissed

ITA 1354/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 124Section 2

income tax authority shall be confined and restricted to the powers and functions conferred or assigned by Board under the Act. Further section 120(2) enables the Board u/s 120(1) to even authorize an income tax authority to issue an order in writing for exercise of powers and function ... subordinate income tax authorities. In other words, section 120(2) does not in any manner provide that CIT can authorize an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax to perform the functions and, exercise the powers of an Assessing Officer. Page 18 of 23 ITA Nos. 1354 & 1355/Bang/2016 3.9. Now coming

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद

Balmukund M Vaishnav, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

ITA 205/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Uv Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6033/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri D.C. Agarwal. Adv
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 24

jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer allocates jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer as per the direction or order issued by the CBDT under Section 120(2) & (1); and sub Section (2) of 124 provides that, where a question arises whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person then