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)

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

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.

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.

Abhishek Jain v. ITO
94 Taxmann.com 355 · 2018 · High Court
89
citing judgments

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.

(i) CIT v. Focus Exports (P.) Ltd.
51 Taxmann.com 46 · 2014 · High Court
81
citing judgments

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.

373 (Delhi-Trib), Satkar Fincap Ltd. v. ACIT CC-21, New Delhi
52 Taxmann.com 220 · 2014 · High Court
69
citing judgments

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.

Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT
337 ITR 389 · 2011 · High Court
68
citing judgments

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.

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. 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.

CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair
295 ITR 228 · 2007 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

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".

CIT v. Lalitkumar Bardia
84 Taxmann.com 213 · 2017 · High Court
49
citing judgments

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.

Judgments on Section 124(3)

M/S. Ekalavya Career Academy Trust, Sundergarh vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rourkela

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

ITA 176/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiam/S Ekalavya Career Academy Trust, Unitech House, Udit Nagar, Rourkela-769012 Sundargarh, Odisha Pan No.Aaate 3283 F ………………Assessee Versus Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela ………………..Revenue Shri Sidharth Ray/Binod Agarwal, Ars For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, In I.T.Appeal No.121/2012-13, Dated 29.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Assessee Has Raised A Legal Ground Which Reads As Under :- “A) For That The Transfer Of The Case For The Period 2010-11 By The Jcit To The File Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rourkela Vide Memo No.Ito/W-2/Rkl/Scrutiny/A.Y 2010-11 Dt.11Th October 2012, Is Without Jurisdiction As The Jcit Has No Power U/S 127 Of The It Act, Who Transferred The Case, Therefore The Order Of Assessment As Well As The Order Of Cit(A) Are Void Ab Initio & The Demand Raised In The Assessment Order Is Liable To Be Annulled.” 3. As The Above Ground Is Legal In Nature, Which Goes To The Root Of The Matter, Therefore, The Said Ground Was Heard First.

Section 120Section 124(3)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Nishakar Educational Trust, Niali vs. ITO (Exemption), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/CTK/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Nishakar Nishakar Educational Educational Trust, Trust, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Ito (Exemptions), At:Village Podana, Po: Kapasi, At:Village Podana, Po: Kapasi, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ps: Niali, Distl Cuttack Ps: Niali, Distl Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aabtn 2929 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 /5/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18 /5 5/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar In Appeal No.0450/16-17 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 11Section 127(2)(a)Section 12ASection 143(2)

K.A.Wires Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-8(3), Kolkata

ITA 1149/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 K.A. Wires Ltd...………………………………………………………..................................……………..….......Appellant Chatterjee Intl Centre 11Th Floor Room No. 11 33A, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aadck 7401 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(3), Kolkata…..…................................................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Adovate & Shri N.P. Jain, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R & Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 4Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 22Nd, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 23/04/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Zinc Manufacturing. It Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 07/09/2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.(-)Rs.37,99,257/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30/03/2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,02,00,743/- Interalia Making An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received By The Company From Three (3) Associate Companies. Out Of This Rs,1,40,00,000/- Addition, The Assessing Officer States That A Protective Addition Of Rs.40,00,000/- Is Made In The Hands Of The Intermediary Companies. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer. 3. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68