Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad 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

Similar News