आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर म(cid:581)।

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 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

........अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Christi Jain C-67, August Kranti Marg, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi-110049 PAN: ABOPV3621R ……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.R. Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 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.

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 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