Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.242

Section 124(3)(a) falls under section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 242 (Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 242 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 124(3)(a) is CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT (275 ITR 124), cited in 30 of the 33 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 124(3)(a)

CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT
275 ITR 124 · 2005 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

The principle of judicial discipline requires consistency in following prior judicial pronouncements. This case is cited as authority for adhering to established legal principles.

(iv) CIT v. British India Corporation Ltd.
337 ITR 64 · 2011 · High Court
19
citing judgments

A question of an Assessing Authority's jurisdiction cannot be disputed after assessment proceedings are completed. Such disputes can only be decided by the Commissioner or the Board, not by an appellate authority under Section 246.

Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of West Bengal
10 SCC 32 · 2009 · Reported
11
citing judgments

A fair hearing requires that a person be served with a proper, clear, and precise notice to enable them to make an effective defence. Ambiguity in notice denies the right to fair and judicious proceedings, and the adequacy of notice is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Umanath Pandey v. State of UP
12 SCC 40 · 2009 · Reported
11
citing judgments

A show cause notice must be precise and unambiguous, clearly stating the case to be met, and adequate time must be given for the assessee to make a representation. Failure to do so vitiates the order.

Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala
1 SCC 540 · 2009 · Reported
10
citing judgments

Taxation must be carried out in accordance with law, including provisions for tax collection, rates, and recovery. Excess tax paid, barring unjust enrichment, should be refunded.

Elite Pharmaceuticals v. ITO
242 Taxmann 345 · 2016 · High Court
10
citing judgments

A challenge to jurisdiction under section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act must be made within one month of the notice, as prescribed by the Act.

S. K. Industries v. ACIT
141 Taxmann.com 568 · 2022 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Grindlays Bank v. CIT
193 ITR 457 · 1992 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Awadhesh Pratap Singh Abdul Rehman & Bros. v. CIT
201 ITR 406 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan
2 SCC 654 · 1987 · Reported
5
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 124(3)(a)

Aeon Formulations Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2481/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2481/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Aeon Formulations Pvt.Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Plot No.21, Door No.2 Vs. Corporate Ward 2(1) Venkateswara Nagar Chennai. Velu Naicker Street, Ramapuram Chennai – 600 089. (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) [Pan: Aahca4128R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Beesam Narasing Rao, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35

Mukesh Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in view of our above observations

ITA 665/CHNY/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Mr. Uttamchand Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Meherunniger Begam, Suri, Birbhum vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3, Suri, Birbhum

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

ITA 1769/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Add. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Income Tax Officer, Dindigul vs. A1924 C Ammapatty Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society, C Ammapatty, Vedasandur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands Partly Allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1074/CHNY/2026[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Inturi Rama Rao & Hon’Ble Manu Kumar Giriिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019) Income Tax Officer A1924 C Ammapatty Income Tax Building, Primary Agricultural Co- Palani Road, Dindigul, Operative Credit Society Dindigul-624002, Tamil C.Ammapatty, Ramagiri, Vs. Nadu Vedasandur, Dindigul-624703. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ" Respondent

For Appellant: AACAA1395F
Section 124(3)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144B(1)(i)Section 144B(1)(iii)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Vijay Kumar Bansal, Jind vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1317/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Naveen Chandravijay Kumar Bansal Vs. Deputy Commissioner Shri Vishnu Laxmi Marbel Huda Complex, Gandhi Nagar Bhiwani - 127 021 Jind, Haryana – 126 102 Pan No. Abhpb 1245 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. R. Singla, C.A. Revenue By Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.06.2026

Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Santosh Kumar, Fatehpur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Fatehpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 19/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 69A

Income Tax Officer, Anakapalli vs. The Srungavaram Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, Nathavaram Mandal

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 142/VIZ/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: AAFAT5033N
Section 120(1)Section 124(3)Section 124(3)(a)Section 124(3)(b)Section 124(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)

Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Chennai vs. Ezhumalai, Thirukazhukundram

ITA 4108/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4108/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, V Ezhumalai, Non Corporate Ward- S 1123, Ponpatharkoodam, 22(1), Tambaram Gangai Amman Koil Street, Thirukazhukundram, Chengalpattu – 603405 Pan: Acipe8113C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. V Aswathy – Jcit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Jayesh Kanungo HUF, Khetwadi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6855/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Bijayananda Prusethjayesh Kanungo Huf Ito -19(2)(1), Mumbai 203, Rajgiri Apartment, A Wing, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 13Thkhetwadi Back Road, Mumbai Parel Mumbai 400012 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabhj8492E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar Singh a/w. Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri. Nakul Agrawal Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Venkata Sujatha Chruvupalli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR
Section 124(3)(a)Section 127(2)Section 129Section 143(2)

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Indovision Commodities Limited

The appeal is dismissed

ITAT/12/2025HC Calcutta01 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

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

Ajithkumar Singu, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (International Taxation), Vijayawada

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

ITA 348/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.348/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Vs. Ajithkumar Singu The Income Tax Officer Ward (International Taxation) D.No. 8-76-1, Murikipudi Income Tax Office Chilakaluripeta C.R. Building, Annex Ramachandrapuram M.G. Road Guntur – 522626 Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Etxps2554D]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

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

ITO Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Suhasit Star Trading Private Limited, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 4771/MUM/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankarsuhasit Star Trading Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Ltd. बनाम 15(3)(4), Room No. 15B, 01, Laura Building No. 13/21, Ground Floor, Aayakar 1St Dhobi Talao Lane, Mumbai– Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400002, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapcs3728K Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Income Tax Officer, Ward – V/S. Suhasit Star Trading Pvt. 15(3)(4), Room No. 456, 4Th बनाम Ltd. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 312, Sharda M.K. Road, Mumbai – Chambers No. 1, Keshavji N, 400020, Maharashtra Bhat Bazar, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai–400009, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapcs3728K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Mangla,Ar (Virtually Appear) Respondent By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Above Captioned Appeal In Ita 4623/Mum/2023 Is Preferred By The Assessee & Ita 4771/Mum/2023 Is Cross Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla,AR (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

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

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

Surya Narayan Singh, Samastipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(5), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 36/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Surya Narayan Singh Village: Bandiha, P.O. Raniparti, P.S. Rosera, Dist. Samastipur-848117 Pan: Cfkps2988N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 251

Income Tax Officer -1(1), Raipur vs. Suresh Kumar Jethwani, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 451/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.451/Rpr/2024 Co. No.18/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Suresh Kumar Jethwani Prop. Reena Electronics, Oppo. Manju Mamta, M.G.Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aebpj7686N ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 69A

Rahul Tyagi, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.113/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rahul Tyagi Golden Homes 13, New Vip Club, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aitpt6198H

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 124(1)Section 124(3)(a)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

Mintu Das, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 28, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 8/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.08/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mintu Das………………………...………........………………....Appellant C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Kolkata –1. [Pan: Adppd3034M] Vs. Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Challenged The Validity Of The Assessment Proceedings Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Consequent To That, An Addition Of Rs.69,42,916/- U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act & Further Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.4,86,004/- U/S 69 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.16,50,920/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69