INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR V. CHRISTI JAIN, NEW DELHI

ITA 465/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur against Christi Jain concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The core issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the A.O. to pass an assessment order. The A.O. acknowledged the lack of jurisdiction but proceeded with the assessment, which was contested by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC found in favor of the assessee, noting that the A.O. did not have the territorial jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act. The Supreme Court's precedents were cited, emphasizing that any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be validated by subsequent actions or lack of objection from the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773548 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.R. RAO
• Keywords: Validity of assessment
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.465/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Christi Jain C-67, August Kranti Marg, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi-110049 PAN: ABOPV3621R ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.R. Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITO-3(1), Raipur Vs. Christi Jain ITA No. 465/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the revenue emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 05.05.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. In this case, the assessee has assailed the validity of assessment order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) for A.Y.2011-12, dated 30.12.2018 challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the A.O having passed the said order. In fact, the A.O in his order at Para 2 mentioned that proposal dated 18.06.2018 u/s. 127 of the Act was initiated for transferring of the case to ITO-68(1), New Delhi as territorial jurisdiction lies with his charge and the PAN of the assessee was also entered into the ITBA portal to transfer PAN to ITO-68(1), New Delhi. Therefore, the A.O had also acknowledged the fact while framing assessment that he lacks inherent jurisdiction to pass such order in the case of the assessee. However, he still went on to complete assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Thereafter, as correctly examined by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, wherein he writes that there is no denying the fact that the A.O issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act in the case of the assessee did not have the territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITO-3(1), Raipur Vs. Christi Jain ITA No. 465/RPR/2025 3. Another pertinent point which emanates from the observation of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that the A.O was incorrect in observing in the remand report that the assessee did not raise objection over jurisdiction issue before the A.O within one month from the date of service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, hence, the assessee was prevented by Section 124(3) of the Act to agitate on the issue, following the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (2023) 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC). As a matter of fact, the assessee had written various letters to the A.O which are placed on record by way of annexures and had been made part of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is therefore, not again extracted herein for the sake of brevity and the same clearly signifies that the assessee had objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the A.O i.e. ITO-3(2), Raipur in framing assessment right from the very beginning when the assessment proceedings were initiated. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) that the order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It was further observed that if a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. Elaborating further, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that any exercise of power by statutory authorities inconsistent with the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITO-3(1), Raipur Vs. Christi Jain ITA No. 465/RPR/2025 statutory prescription is invalid. Apart from that, it was observed that as there cannot be any waiver of a statutory requirement or provision that goes to the root of the jurisdiction of assessment, therefore, any consequential order passed or action taken will be invalid and without jurisdiction. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are culled out as under: “xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 30. If a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. (Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth Vs. Chancellor, Kannur University). Further, when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner, then that authority has to exercise its power following the prescribed manner (CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh). Any exercise of power by statutory authorities inconsistent with the statutory prescription is invalid…………. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 32. A statutory authority may lack jurisdiction if it does not fulfil the preliminary conditions laid down under the statute, which are necessary to the exercise of its jurisdiction. (Chhotobhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. V. Industrial Court, Maharashtra Nagpur Bench). There cannot be any waiver of a statutory requirement or provision that goes to the root of the jurisdiction of assessment. (Superintendent of Taxes Vs. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust). An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. Any consequential order passed or action taken will also be invalid and without jurisdiction. (Dwarka Prasad Agrawal V. B.D. Agrawal). Thus, the power of assessing officers to reassess is limited and based on the fulfilment of certain preconditions. (CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.)” Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITO-3(1), Raipur Vs. Christi Jain ITA No. 465/RPR/2025 4. That on examination of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the judicial pronouncement, we do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is hereby upheld. 5. As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th day of September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- G. D. PADMAHSHALI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 10th September, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ /The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ /The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Printed from counselvise.com "