MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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