Dismissing the writ petition, the Court held that it had been admitted that the Income-tax Officer, Moradabad had the territorial jurisdiction over the assessee, but objection to the jurisdiction had been raised merely on the ground that on account of pecuniary limit, the proceedings ought to have been initiated by the Assistant CIT-2, Moradabad. The pecuniary limit had been fixed by an order issued by the Chief Commissioner under Instruction No. 1 of 2011 dt. January 31, 2011 and 6 of 2011, dated April 8 of 2011 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Merely because some pecuniary limit had been fixed for purpose of distribution of work between officers, it would not mean that there would be inherent lack of jurisdiction of respondent No. 1. The notice of reassessment was valid. (AY.2017-18)
Shivaaditiya Jems and Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 450 ITR 483/ 331 CTR 245 (All.)(HC)
S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Assessing officer vested with jurisdiction over assessee can issue notice-Pecuniary limits had been laid down for distribution of work among assessing officers would not divest assessing officer of his jurisdiction-Notice valid. [S. 120, 124, 147, Art. 226]