Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High 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