INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 120(4)(b) Section 127

Income-tax authorities - Exercise of functions and powers - Absence of order under section 120(4)(b)/127(1) -

Assessment proceedings were initiated by Asstt. CIt but were taken over in middle of the proceedings by Addl. CIt and completed by him without there being any valid transfer of jurisdiction from the Asstt. CIT to the Addl. CIT as required under section 127. Revenue took the view that no transfer of case under section 127 was warranted on account of Addl. CIT and Asstt. CIT having concurrent jurisdiction over assessee.Held:Revenue had misunderstood and miss-applied the very concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction' and had ignored the distinction between 'concurrent jurisdiction' and 'joint jurisdiction'.Assignment of 'concurrent jurisdiction' to two officers of different hierarchy, does not mean that both the officers can simultaneously or jointly work upon the assessment proceedings of same assessee. But it means that both the officers are legally eligible for assignment of jurisdiction of assessment proceedings over assessee and, therefore, any one of these officers can be assigned jurisdiction by the higher authority. But, exercise of jurisdiction between both the officers would always be mutually exclusive to each other.The assignment of jurisdiction to an officer and its transfer from one officer to the other can be made only through the process prescribed under section 127 which was lacking in the instant case. Moreover, Addl. CIT ipso facto cannot exercise powers or perform functions of an AO under the Act. Her can do so only if he is specifically directed under section 120(4)(6). Therefore, Addl. CIT in the absence of a valid order under section 120(4)(b) as well as section 127(1) could not have exercised powers of an AO to pass the impugned assessment order. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order was quashed.

Applied:Tactasow v. ACIT 2016 Tax Pub (DT) 5055 (Mum-Trib)

REFERRED : Prachi Leather (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 26(L) of 2010, dt. 8-12-2010], City Garden v. ITO (2012) 21 Taxmann.com 373 (Jod) : (2012) 51 SOT 195 (Jod) (URO) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2734 (Jod-Trib), Microfin Security (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2005) 3 SOT 302 (Lkw-Trib) : 2005 TaxPub(DT) 1513 (Luck-Trib), Harvinder Singh Jaggi v. Asstt. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 869 (Del-Trib) : (2016) 67 taxmann.com 109 (Del-Trib) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1288 (Del-Trib) and CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC) : (2001) 119 Taxman 352 (SC) : 2001 TaxPub(DT) 1637 (SC).

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT