| COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
| CORAM: | M. Balganesh (AM), Mahavir Singh (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 120(4), 127, 2(7A) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | Assessment, estoppel, jurisdictional issue |
| COUNSEL: | J.D. Mistri |
| 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
Recent Comments