ITO Vs Christi Jain (ITAT Raipur)
When AO Has No Jurisdiction, Assessment Dies at Birth – ITAT Raipur- Jurisdictional Defect Cannot Be Waived: ITAT Follows Supreme Court in Quashing Reassessment
Background
- AO’s Action: Reassessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on 30.12.2018 by ITO-3(1), Raipur.
- AO himself noted that jurisdiction lay with ITO-68(1), New Delhi & proposal u/s 127 for transfer was initiated, but he still completed assessment.
CIT(A) Findings
- Held that AO lacked territorial jurisdiction.
- Assessee had objected to jurisdiction through multiple letters.
- Hence, order passed by AO was invalid.
Revenue’s Appeal
- Claimed assessee did not raise objection within one month as per sec. 124(3).
- Argued CIT(A) erred in annulling assessment.
ITAT’s Observations
- AO himself admitted jurisdiction belonged to ITO-68(1), New Delhi.
- Assessee had objected from the beginning.
- Relied on SC rulings:
DCIT (E) Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (2023) – jurisdictional defect not curable.
Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024, SC) – order without jurisdiction is nullity.
Kelvinator of India Ltd. – reassessment powers limited to statutory preconditions.
Principle: Jurisdictional defect cannot be waived; any order without jurisdiction is void ab initio.
Decision
- ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order.
- Reassessment u/s 147/144 by ITO-3(1), Raipur quashed as without jurisdiction.
- Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
- Assessee’s relief sustained.
When AO lacks territorial jurisdiction, reassessment order is void ab initio. Jurisdictional defect goes to the root & cannot be waived, even if objections are delayed.
