Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act
Income-tax Act, 2025: s.242
Section 124(3) 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) is CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137), cited in 96 of the 113 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 124(3)
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.
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.
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.
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.
For a valid assessment under Section 153C against an 'other person', the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note must explicitly identify seized documents or assets found during a search that specifically belong to that 'other person'. Mere association or relationship with the searched assessee, without specific findings of belonging documents or assets, is insufficient to assume jurisdiction.
The present case is cited as authority for the proposition that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are valid even if they do not refer to the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings, provided the reasons are communicated to the assessee. Furthermore, the issue of jurisdiction under Section 124(3) and the validity of notice under Section 143(2) are also key areas addressed.
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.
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.
The computation of deduction under Section 80HHC requires applying the formula: Profits derived from exports = (Profits of the business x Export Turnover) / Total Turnover. For this calculation, miscellaneous income, sundry sales, and income from services, if not directly relatable to export activity, are generally to be excluded from "profits of the business" and "total turnover".
An assessment order must be passed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Mere participation in assessment proceedings or acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction on an Assessing Officer who inherently lacks it. Waiver relates to rights or privileges, not the conferment of jurisdiction.
