Section 124 of the Income Tax Act
The decision most relied on for Section 124 is Pr. CIT v. Sunrise Finlease P. Ltd. (89 Taxmann.com 1), cited in 120 of the 84 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 124
Section 292B of the Income-tax Act applies only to technical defects and omissions, not to fundamental errors that vitiate the assessment itself. A reassessment notice, such as one issued under Section 148, if addressed to an incorrect person or in the wrong name, is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates the entire assessment and cannot be cured by Section 292B.
Procedural errors in administrative orders, such as misquoting a section for transfer of cases, do not vitiate the action if they do not affect the assessee's substantive rights. However, essential jurisdictional facts, like the recording of a proper satisfaction note, must be duly satisfied for valid assessment proceedings.
An assessee has no fundamental right to be assessed by a particular Assessing Officer or at a specific place. Orders transferring a case are administrative, for better revenue administration, and are not justiciable unless mala fides or clear prejudice is proven, with inconvenience not being a valid ground.
An assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer if such an objection is not raised within 30 days of receiving notice, as per Section 124(3) of the Income-tax Act.
If an assessee fails to raise an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer within the stipulated time, they will be barred from raising the issue later. If the Commissioner decides the issue, their decision is final and cannot be questioned in appeal.
The rule of consistency applies in income tax proceedings, meaning similar views taken in earlier years should ordinarily be followed in subsequent years if facts and circumstances are similar.
An error in mentioning the specific sub-section of a law, or referencing a wrong section, does not invalidate an action if the authority otherwise possesses the power to take that action.
Income-tax authorities are of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and the Act does not prescribe their respective jurisdictions or functions, leaving it to be decided by the Board or Commissioner. Allocation of jurisdiction is for administrative convenience and does not invalidate actions due to defects in its exercise.
Judgments on Section 124
Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5
