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)

Dombivali Daivdnya Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi (Maryadit), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Kalyan

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 1930/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

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

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

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

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

Jodhpur Estate, Murshidabad vs. DCIT, Cir-42, Murshidabad, Murshadabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 691/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 690 & 691/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Jodhpur Estate Dcit, Circle-42, Murshidabad 24/33/13, Joy Chand Road, Khagra- Vs. 742103, West Bengal Pan: Aajfj 4751 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K.M. Roy, Ar Respondent By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: Both The Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee By Challenging Two Separate Orders Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 15.06.2023 For A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively By Raising Common Grounds Of Appeal For Both The Assessment Year Which Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C

Jodhpur Estate, Khagra vs. DCIT, Cir-42, Murshidabad, Murshadabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 690/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 690 & 691/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Jodhpur Estate Dcit, Circle-42, Murshidabad 24/33/13, Joy Chand Road, Khagra- Vs. 742103, West Bengal Pan: Aajfj 4751 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K.M. Roy, Ar Respondent By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: Both The Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee By Challenging Two Separate Orders Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 15.06.2023 For A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively By Raising Common Grounds Of Appeal For Both The Assessment Year Which Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C

Chanchal Kumar Samanta, Purba Medinipur vs. Asst. CIT, Cir.-27, Purba Medinipur

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

ITA 910/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Chanchal Kumar Samanta Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Stall No. C-3, Mohana Marketing Complex Vs Circle – 27, Haldia Haldia Township Haldia - 721607 [Pan : Ateps7626R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/02/2017, 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. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Was Unjustified In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 60,86,100/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Alleged Undisclosed Stock Of Jewellery.

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

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

Cane Development Council, Bulandshahar, Gorakhpur vs. Addl. CIT, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 6709/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amit Shuklain Ita No. 6709/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Cane Development Council, Vs. Addl.C.I.T. Bulandshahar, C/O D.S. Range-Bulandshahar, Kohli Advocate, F-06, 1St Distt. Bulandshahar, Floor, Narayan Tower, Uttar Pradesh. Gandhi Ashram Lane, Golghar, Gorakhpur (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aabtc0537B) Assessee By: Dr. Ram Samujh, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2017

For Appellant: Dr. Ram Samujh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(20)Section 120(4)Section 124(3)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 5

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Harbans Lal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 2458/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. P.K. Bansal & Sh. C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Harbans Lal, A-40, Panchvati, Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(4), Room No. D-217, Vikas Azadpur, New Delhi Bhawan, New Delhi Pan : Aaapl0068R (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 202/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 2458/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Harbans Lal, A-40, Panchvati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(4), Azadpur, New Delhi Room No. D-217, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi Pan : Aaapl0068R (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Achin Garg, Advocate & Sh. Sachin Kumar, Ca Date Of Hearing 26.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2016 Order Per P.K. Bansal, A.M.: The Appeal As Well As The Cross Objections Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxii

Section 124Section 124(3)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)

ACIT, Uttar Pradesh vs. M/S. Abhay Pigments (P) Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 6487/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Anuragi, DRFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Tulsian, CA
Section 115JSection 124Section 143(2)Section 143(3)