Income Tax

Jurisdiction of AO cannot be challenged after completion of assessment proceedings-ITAT

Jurisdiction of AO cannot be challenged after completion of assessment proceedings. ITAT dismissed assessee’s appeal in view of provisions of section 124(3)(a)

The appellant assessee by cross objections had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in framing the impugned assessment order without issuing and serving the mandatory notices u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2340 (2018) (05) ITAT

The first statutory notice u/s 143 (2) was issued by the AO who was not the jurisidiction AO as per return filed by the assessee. Later, the assessment record of the assessee was transferred to the jurisdictional AO who issued the second notice.

The assessee contended inter alia that the AO had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order for want of issuance of valid notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act. The case of the assessee was that since the AO who issued the first notice had no jurisdiction whereas the second notice issued by the jurisdictional ACIT was beyond statutory period, the assessment order was liable to be quashed. It was submitted that mere proving of dispatch was not enough to prove the service of notice on the assessee which was a mandatory requirement and that notice issued by the non-jurisdictional AO was invalid.

The Tribunal observed that as per the provisions contained u/s 124(3)(a) the assessee is not entitled to question the jurisdiction of the AO after an expiry of one month from the date on which he/she was served with notice u/s 142(1), 142(2) and 143(2) or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.

It was further observed that the assessee had first time questioned the assessment order on the basis of jurisdictional error for want of issuance of the statutory notice before first appellate authority, Commissioner (Appeals). It was also not in dispute that the assessee continued to attend the assessment proceedings after receipt of the notice issued u/s 143 (2) and had failed to bring on record if any prejudice was caused to her.

The Tribunal noted that Hon’ble Allahabad High Court while deciding the identical issued relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the question of jurisdiction of the assessing authority cannot be disputed after completion of the assessment proceedings which can only be addressed by the Commissioner or the Board, as the case may be, as per provisions contained under section 124 (4) which excludes the jurisdiction of first appellate authority or the court.

The Tribunal observed that it was not the case of the assessee that the ACIT who has passed the assessment order was having no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case rather she/he had questioned the territorial jurisdiction for want of issuance of a notice issued u/s 143 (2) which is a mere irregularity and the assessment cannot be set aside on this ground as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court. Moreover, no prejudice was shown to have been caused by the assessee for want of issuance of statutory notice issued by ACIT having no territorial jurisdiction rather defended the proceedings before AO without raising any objection.

It was further observed that an identical issue had also been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court wherein issue of jurisdiction had been decided in favour of the Revenue in accordance with the provisions contained u/s 124(3)(a) which raised a bar for the assessee to question the jurisdictional issue after the expiry of one month from the date of notice u/s 142 (2) or after completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.

The Tribunal observed that in the instant case, no doubt, the AO/ACIT who had issued the first notice u/s 143(2) had no jurisdiction and subsequently, the case was transferred to jurisdictional AO/ACIT before whom the assessee continued to attend the proceedings and get the assessment completed without raising any objections. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, the assessee was not entitled to question the jurisdictional issue.

The ITAT opined that CIT(A) had rightly decided the issue as to the service of notice u/s 143(2) as a jurisdictional error against the assessee.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • ICAI

Empanelment of ICAI Exam observer for January 2027 Examinations. Last date: 20.11.2026

Empanelment to act as ICAI exam observers for January 2027 CA Examination. Last date to apply is 20.11.2026 Empanelment of…

8 hours ago
  • GST

No arrest under GST- Major decision of 57th Meeting of GST Council held on 8th October 2026

No arrest under GST- Major decision taken in 57th Meeting of the GST Council on 8th October 2026 PRESS RELEASE…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Later SC ruling cannot render an act done in compliance of a court order a statutory default

A subsequent Apex Court ruling on the substantive issue cannot retrospectively make an act done in compliance of a binding…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Interest payment on mobilisation advance to NHAI not liable to TDS u/s 194A

Interest payment on mobilisation advance to NHAI not liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194A - ITAT Interest…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Typographical error in turnover accepted during assessment not a mistake apparent from record

Typographical error in turnover declared in ITR was not as a mistake apparent from the record u/s 154 when AO…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Plea that assessee was not aware of order cannot be brushed aside in absence of proof of service

Ground taken by assessee that he was not aware of the order cannot be brushed aside so lightly in absence…

5 days ago