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

ACIT Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Watermark Capital Ltd.[Previously, Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd], Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Circle-3(3)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Watermark Capital Room No. 628, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Watermark Financial Road, Mumbai-400020. Consultants Ltd.) 1010, Maker Chambers- V, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw3474H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anand Kumar Tibrewal Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 20.11.2019 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Has Not Preferred An Appeal/Cross Objection Against The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Since It Has Got Relief On Merits In Respect Of Grounds Raised By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A). According To The Ld. Ar, Therefore, The Assessee Has Preferred An Application Under Rule 27 Of The Income Tax Tribunal Rule, 1963 Wherein It Has Raised A Legal Issue Challenging The Jurisdiction Of The Dcit Circle-3(3) To Have Issued Notice Dated 02.09.2014 U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Rules”). & Thereafter Erred In Framing The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30.03.2016

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 115JSection 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Shri. Sunil Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 337/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144