Nasir Ali Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
No 120(4)(b) Order, No Jurisdiction –Mere Mention Not Enough- ITAT Quashes Addl. CIT’s Assessment
Assessee challenged validity of assessment framed by Addl. CIT, contending that no valid order u/s 120(4)(b) existed empowering Addl. CIT to act as AO.
Revenue argued that jurisdiction was mentioned in assessment order & objection was time-barred under s.124(3). However, ITAT noted that under s.2(7A) read with s.120(4)(b), an Addl. CIT can act as AO only if specifically empowered by CBDT/competent authority. Revenue failed to produce any such order/notification despite opportunities. Mere mention in assessment order of a transfer order was insufficient. s.124(3) presupposes lawful jurisdiction; if none existed, limitation to challenge does not apply. Accordingly, ITAT held that Addl. CIT lacked jurisdiction & entire assessment was illegal & void ab initio. All additions were quashed. Delhi High Court (ITA 133/2021, 20.03.2024) upheld ITAT’s view, observing that since no order u/s 120(4)(b) was produced, assessment could not survive.
An Addl. CIT cannot act as AO without a valid empowerment order u/s 120(4)(b). Absence of jurisdictional order renders assessment null & void.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi, Dated 30.01.2018 for the A.Y. 2011-2012.
