Rahul Tyagi Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
The appeal arose from the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 31 January 2024 for AY 2016-17. The assessee raised both legal and merits grounds, but submitted that the legal issue should be decided first because, if accepted, the merits grounds would become academic.
The principal legal issue concerned the validity of the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first notice under Section 143(2), dated 18 September 2017, initiating limited scrutiny, was issued by ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur. Subsequently, a notice under Section 142(1), dated 9 June 2018, was issued by ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur, who ultimately framed the assessment.
The assessee contended that no order under Section 127 transferring jurisdiction from ITO, Ward-4(5) to ITO, Ward-3(1) had been placed on record. The assessee also relied on the ITR acknowledgement, which showed ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur as the designated Assessing Officer.
The assessee argued that, if ITO, Ward-4(5) originally had jurisdiction and the case was subsequently transferred to ITO, Ward-3(1), a Section 127 transfer order was mandatory. Alternatively, if ITO, Ward-3(1) was the actual jurisdictional officer, the initial Section 143(2) notice issued by ITO, Ward-4(5) itself suffered from lack of jurisdiction.
Revenue’s Submission on Section 124(3)
