Home ›

Search Results For: 127

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
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

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 25, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 127(2) Transfer of case: The existence of agreement between two jurisdictional Commissioners is a condition precedent for passing the order of transfer. The agreement cannot be implied because S. 127(2) (2) (a) contemplates a positive state of mind of the two jurisdictional CsIT. Absence of disagreement cannot tantamount to agreement

The existence of such agreement between two jurisdictional Commissioners is a condition precedent for passing the order of transfer. Except for the request which came from the investigation office, Chennai of transferring the case, there is no reference whatsoever to any such agreement. Clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 127 provides for consequences when there is no such agreement. When the jurisdiction to pass an order of transfer under clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 127 can be exercised only when there is such an agreement, the fact that such an agreement exists ought to have been stated in the the show cause notice as the same is a jurisdictional fact. Apart from the failure to mention the same in the show cause notice, the only stand of the revenue is that there is an agreement by implication

Read more ›