Virendra Gir Goswami Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
The appeal arose from the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 27.07.2023 for AY 2011-12. The assessee raised both legal and merits grounds but submitted that if the jurisdictional ground was decided in his favour, the merits grounds would become academic.
The assessee challenged the reassessment on the ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by ITO-1(3), Bhilai, whereas the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) was framed by ITO-2(2), Bhilai. According to the assessee, no transfer order under Section 127 had been passed by the competent authority transferring jurisdiction from ITO-1(3) to ITO-2(2). It was therefore submitted that the assessment was void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
The assessee relied upon the ITAT Raipur decision in Rahul Tyagi Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No.113/RPR/2024, dated 19.03.2025.
Department’s Submission on Section 124(3)(a)
The Tribunal directed the Senior Departmental Representative to obtain a report from the Assessing Officer. The report relied upon the Supreme Court decision in DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (2023) 151 com 434 (SC).
The Department’s reliance was based on the proposition that where an assessee participates in proceedings and does not question the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction within 30 days of receiving notice under Section 142(1), the jurisdiction cannot subsequently be questioned under Section 124(3)(a).
