Section 124 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.242

Section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Pr. CIT v. Sunrise Finlease P. Ltd. (89 Taxmann.com 1), cited in 120 of the 154 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 124

Pr. CIT v. Sunrise Finlease P. Ltd.
89 Taxmann.com 1 · 2018 · High Court
120
citing judgments
CIT v. Norton Motors
275 ITR 595 · 2005 · High Court
71
citing judgments

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.

L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO
41 ITR 12 · 1961 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

The exercise of a power must be referable to a jurisdiction that validates it, not one that would render it nugatory. Provisions concerning the machinery for assessment must be interpreted to make the tax charge effective.

Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India
31 ITR 565 · 1957 · Supreme Court
46
citing judgments

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.

ITA Nos.162, 164, 165, 167 & 168 of 2002 Page 24 of 51 in CIT v. SS Ahluwalia
138 ITR 391 · 1982 · High Court
34
citing judgments

An appellate tribunal ought to remand a matter rather than set aside assessments entirely when jurisdiction is in question.

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.

345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT
232 Taxmann 414 · 2015 · High Court
28
citing judgments
Isha Beevi v. TRO
101 ITR 449 · 1975 · Supreme Court
25
citing judgments

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.

46 Taxmann.com 169 (Delhi); Kanji Mai & Sons. v. CIT
189 ITR 326 · 1991 · High Court
25
citing judgments

An assessee must raise objections regarding territorial jurisdiction before the assessment is completed. The Central Board of Revenue has the power to assign assessments to an Income Tax Officer of its choice.

Siksha 'O' Amusandhan v. CIT
20 Taxmann.com 798 · 2012 · Reported
21
citing judgments

An appellate court should decide a case on its merits using available materials rather than remanding it if the necessary documents are on record. Furthermore, assessments under Section 153A are applicable only if a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A occurred after March 31, 2002.

Judgments on Section 124

Sonam Raj, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Patna

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250