Harish Kumar Chhabada Vs PCIT (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Chhattisgarh High Court held that assessee is barred from raising objection regarding jurisdiction after one month of service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ITAT absolutely justified in not entertaining jurisdictional question.
Facts- The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner. The substantial question of law involved herein is whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the validity of assessment under Section 143(3) based on a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act issued by the non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer, solely relying on the address in the PAN?
Conclusion- Held that the appellant/assessee was served with notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act on 8-8-2013, which was served upon him on 21-8-2013 and he did not raise objection qua jurisidiciton of the Assessing Officer till his appeal was decided by the CIT (Appeals) on 14-72016. The assessee also did not raise any objection regarding jurisdiction upon completion of his assessment. As such, the plea with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the ITO was barred by virtue of Section 124(3)(a) of the IT Act. Even otherwise, by the notification dated 15-11-2014, the territorial reallocation of wards at Raipur was undertaken and thus by operation of law, validly, the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur has been conferred with the jurisdiction after reallocation of wards. Therefore, the ITAT is absolutely justified in not entertaining the question with regard to jurisdiction of the AO.
