Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

Actions of the AO without proper transfer under Section 127 are void ab initio due to jurisdictional error - Delhi High Court Quashes Tax Assessment Orders

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today quashed multiple assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 21(1), Delhi, against Raj Sheela Growth Fund Pvt Ltd., stating that these were void ab initio due to a fundamental jurisdictional error.

The court addressed the pivotal legal issue of whether a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) can proceed with tax assessments in the absence of a valid transfer order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that actions taken without such an order are inherently flawed and cannot be sustained legally.

Raj Sheela Growth Fund Pvt Ltd. was initially under the jurisdiction of Central Circle-16/20, New Delhi since the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. Despite filing its returns accordingly, it received notices from ITO Ward 21(1) for AY 2015-16, leading to subsequent assessments and additions to its income, which it challenged on grounds of jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional Validity: The court emphatically noted that without a valid order under Section 127 transferring the jurisdiction from Central Circle-20 to ITO Ward 21(1), all assessments made were without legal backing.

Administrative Procedures: The court criticized the administrative oversight, underscoring the necessity for adherence to statutory requirements when transferring cases between different AOs to prevent jurisdictional errors.

Legal Precedents: Referencing landmark judgments, the court reinforced that the jurisdiction of an AO is not just a procedural detail but a fundamental aspect that affects the validity of tax assessments.

The court quashed the assessment orders dated December 31, 2017, and September 30, 2021, along with setting aside the ITAT order dated August 9, 2019, which had remanded the matter back to the AO. It declared that all actions taken by ITO Ward 21(1) were void due to the absence of a transfer order under Section 127.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2024

Raj Sheela Growth Fund Pvt Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 21(1), Delhi

Latest Legal News