Jitendra Behl Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Jurisdiction First, Tax Later – ITAT Jaipur Quashes 69A Addition for Lack of AO’s Authority; Tax Assessment Quashed: AO Lacked Proper Territorial Jurisdiction; ITAT Nullifies Addition: Failure to Resolve Assessee’s Jurisdiction Challenge; Demonetisation Addition Deleted: Assessment Void due to Non-Jurisdictional AO.
Assessee challenged the addition of ₹14.47 lakh made u/s 69A as unexplained cash deposit during demonetisation, contending that the assessment was framed by an AO without jurisdiction, as he was a resident of Sri Ganganagar. AO treated the deposits as unexplained on the ground that Assessee failed to prove recovery of old sundry debtors from his closed business. CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the addition, rejecting the debtor-recovery explanation as unsubstantiated.
Before ITAT, Assessee furnished VAT registration, ITR, & Aadhaar showing his address at Sri Ganganagar, & pointed out that he had objected to jurisdiction during assessment itself. Tribunal noted that Revenue failed to rebut these facts or produce AO’s report despite opportunity. Referring to Deep Channel Kothari v. CIT (35 Taxman 223, Raj.), ITAT held that objection to jurisdiction goes to the root & must be decided before merits. Since the Jaipur AO lacked jurisdiction, the entire assessment stood invalid.
Held: Assessment order passed by non-jurisdictional AO is void ab initio; addition u/s 69A & all consequential actions quashed.
