Search Results For: jurisdictional issue


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 16, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 26, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04, 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(7A)/ 120(4): Though, by virtue of the retrospective amendment to s. 2(7A), the Addl CIT is an "Assessing Officer", he can act as such only if there is a notification issued by the CBDT u/s 120(4)(b) or if there is an order u/s 127 transferring jurisdiction from the DCIT to the Addl CIT. In the absence of either, the assessment order is without jurisdiction and has to be quashed as null and void. The fact that the assessee co-operated is irrelevant because there is no estoppel. The argument of the Dept that as the order is passed by a higher officer, there is no prejudice to the assessee is not acceptable. The matter also cannot be remanded back (All imp judgements referred)

In view of the legal discussion made above and facts of the case, it is clear that impugned assessment order has been passed without authority of law in as much as Revenue has not been able to demonstrate that the Additional Commissioner of Income tax who had passed the assessment order had valid authority to perform and exercise the powers and functions of an Assessing Officer of the assessee and to pass the impugned assessment order. Under these circumstances, we have no other option but to hold the same as nullity and, therefore, the impugned assessment order is quashed having been passed with out authority of law

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 9, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 7, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148/292B: The officer recording the reasons u/s 148(2) for reopening the assessment & the officer issuing notice u/s 148(1) has to be the same person. If the reasons are recorded by the DCIT but the notice is issued by the ITO, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. The s. 148 notice is a jurisdictional notice. Any inherent defect therein cannot be cured u/s 292B. The fact that the assessee participated in the proceedings is irrelevant

Since the notice under section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice, any inherent defect therein cannot be cured under section 292B of the Act. A notice under section 148(1) of the Act would be a valid notice if the jurisdictional Assessing Officer records the reasons for reopening the assessment as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 148 and thereafter the same officer namely the jurisdictional Assessing Officer issues the notice under section 148(1) of the Act.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 25, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 27, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 170/ 292BB: A notice issued in the name of the amalgamating entity after amalgamation is void because the amalgamating entity ceases to exist. Participation in the proceedings by the assessee cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in s. 292BB. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.

In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 8, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 119: The CBDT has no jurisdiction to issue a Circular to amend the legislative provisions set out in the Act. Such action is ultra vires and liable to be quashed

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued a Circular under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act,1961. In fact, it amended the provisions contained in Rule 68B of the IInd Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, which otherwise have statutory force. Such legislative provisions cannot be amended by CBDT in exercise of its power under Section 119 of the Act. The High Court has, therefore, rightly held the circular ultra virus and quashed the same.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 30, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 8, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
A question relating to jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter can always be raised at any stage. Issues relating to initiation of s. 147 proceedings and/or service of notice are questions relating to assumption of jurisdiction. If an issue has not been decided in appeal and has simply been remanded, the same can be raised again notwithstanding with the fact that no further appeal has been preferred (Sun Engineering Works 198 ITR 297 (SC) explained)

The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) would not apply as the appellant is not claiming any deduction or relief on the taxibility of any item in the reopened assessment proceedings which had not been claimed in the original assessment