{"id":36868,"date":"2023-09-05T21:29:05","date_gmt":"2023-09-05T15:59:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/executive-board-of-the-methodist-church-in-india-v-acite-202295-itr-30-snmum-trib\/"},"modified":"2023-09-05T21:29:05","modified_gmt":"2023-09-05T15:59:05","slug":"executive-board-of-the-methodist-church-in-india-v-acite-202295-itr-30-snmum-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/executive-board-of-the-methodist-church-in-india-v-acite-202295-itr-30-snmum-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Executive Board of The Methodist Church In India v. ACIT(E) (2022)95 ITR 30 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Held that\u00a0 the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the assessee-trust was the Assistant Commissioner (E), Mumbai and jurisdiction had never been changed or transferred to the ITO, Bareli, the very initiation of reopening by the ITO, Bareli under section\u00a0147\u00a0\/\u00a0148\u00a0of the Act was bad in law. Under sections\u00a0120\u00a0and\u00a0124\u00a0of the Act only the Assistant Commissioner (E), Mumbai was the Assessing Officer of the assessee-trust empowered to frame the assessment, which had never been changed or transferred to ITO, Bareli under section\u00a0127\u00a0of the Act. The notice under section\u00a0148\u00a0of the Act having been issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the ITO, Bareli, the reassessment framed by the Assistant Commissioner (E), Mumbai on the basis of initiation of reopening under section\u00a0147\u00a0\/\u00a0148\u00a0of the Act was not sustainable in the eyes of law for lack of jurisdiction being void ab initio.(AY.2007-08)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 147 : Reassessment-Jurisdiction-Notice issued by Assessing Officer   not having jurisdiction-Order passed by jurisdictional officer-Reassessment  is void ab initio. [S. 120, 124, 127, 148]  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-9AE","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36868","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36868"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36868\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36869,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36868\/revisions\/36869"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36868"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36868"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36868"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}