# Shivaaditya Jems & Jewellery Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 172
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-14
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1047 of 2021
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shivaaditya-jems-jewellery-pvt-ltd-v-income-tax-ors-48974
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Tax Law - Reassessment - Jurisdiction
- Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(3),
148, 132A,
120(1), 120(2), 148A(d),
2(7A), 124(1) & 124(5) - Concurrent
jurisdictions are not an anathema but an
accepted position under the Act. The term
"jurisdiction" in Section 120 of the Act has
been used loosely and not in strict sense
to confer jurisdiction exclusively to a
specified and single assessing officer, to
the exclusion of others with concurrent
jurisdiction. The Act does not authoritatively
confer exclusive jurisdiction to specific Income
Tax Authority. It is left to the Board to issue
directions for exercise of power and functions
taking
into
consideration
territorial
area,
class/types of persons, income and case, and
Board have been given wide power and latitude.
Section 120 by necessary implication postulates
and acknowledges that multiple or more than
one Assessing officer could exercise jurisdiction
over particular assessee. (Para 21)

It has been admitted that respondent No. 1 i.e
the ITO-2(1), Moradabad has the territorial
jurisdiction over the petitioner, but only
objection to the jurisdiction has been
raised merely on the ground that on
account of pecuniary limit, the proceedings
ought to have been initiated by ACIT-2,
Moradabad. (Para 18)

Merely because some pecuniary limit has
been fixed for purpose of distribution of
work between officers, it would not mean
that there shall be inherent lack of
jurisdiction of respondent No. 1. Once the
territorial jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 is
admitted by the petitioner, there existed no
occasion for the Assessing Officer to refer the
matter for determination u/s 124(2) before the
assessment was made. Therefore, it cannot be
said that respondent No. 1 lacked inherent
jurisdiction while issuing the impugned notice
u/s 148 of the Act, 1961. (Para 19, 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022) 9 ILRA 172
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ Tax No. 1047 of 2021

Shivaaditya Jems & Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Suyash Agarwal, Sri Divyanshu Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Gaurav Mahajan, Sri Manu
Ghildyal, Sri Sudarshan Singh

A. Tax Law - Reassessment - Jurisdiction
- Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(3),
148, 132A,
120(1), 120(2), 148A(d),
2(7A), 124(1) & 124(5) - Concurrent
jurisdictions are not an anathema but an
accepted position under the Act. The term
"jurisdiction" in Section 120 of the Act has
been used loosely and not in strict sense
to confer jurisdiction exclusively to a
specified and single assessing officer, to
the exclusion of others with concurrent
jurisdiction. The Act does not authoritatively
confer exclusive jurisdiction to specific Income
Tax Authority. It is left to the Board to issue
directions for exercise of power and functions
taking
into
consideration
territorial
area,
class/types of persons, income and case, and
Board have been given wide power and latitude.
Section 120 by necessary implication postulates
and acknowledges that multiple or more than
one Assessing officer could exercise jurisdiction
over particular assessee. (Para 21)

It has been admitted that respondent No. 1 i.e
the ITO-2(1), Moradabad has the territorial
jurisdiction over the petitioner, but only
objection to the jurisdiction has been
raised merely on the ground that on
account of pecuniary limit, the proceedings
ought to have been initiated by ACIT-2,
Moradabad. (Para 18)

Merely because some pecuniary limit has
been fixed for purpose of distribution of
work between officers, it would not mean
that there shall be inherent lack of
jurisdiction of respondent No. 1. Once the
territorial jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 is
admitted by the petitioner, there existed no
occasion for the Assessing Officer to refer the
matter for determination u/s 124(2) before the
assessment was made. Therefore, it cannot be
said that respondent No. 1 lacked inherent
jurisdiction while issuing the impugned notice
u/s 148 of the Act, 1961. (Para 19, 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Abhishek Jain Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-55
(1), New Delhi; 2018 (94) Taxmann.Com 355
(Delhi) (Para 21)

Present
petition
assails
notice
dated
31.03.2021, issued u/s 148 and order
dated 13.09.2021, passed by Income Tax
Officer ITO-2(1), Moradabad.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Benerji, J.)

1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav
Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for the respondent no.2 and Sri Sudarshan
Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief:-

"(i) Issue writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
9 All. Shivaaditya Jems and Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax & Ors.
173
notice
dated
31.3.2021
issued
under
Section 148 of the Act, for A.Y. 2017-18
issued by the Income Tax Officer ITO-2(1),
Moradabad,
respondent
no.1(Annexure
no.7).

(ii) Issue writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
order dated 13.9.2021 passed by Income
Tax
Officer
ITO-2(1),
Moradabad
respondent no.1, rejecting the objection of
the petitioner (Annexure no.13).

(iii) Issue writ, order or direction
in the nature of Prohibition restraining the
respondent no. 1 from completing the
reassessment proceeding u/s 148 of the Act,
for A.Y. 2017-18."

3. Briefly stated facts of the present
case are that for the assessment year in
question i.e. 2017-18, the petitioner, which
is a corporate entity, filed its return of
income on 11.10.2017 with the Income Tax
Officer (ITO-2(1), Moradabad disclosing
total income of Rs. 32,57,900/. It has been
admitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner before us that ITO Ward-2(1) is
the Assessing Officer who has territorial
jurisdiction over the petitioner.

Facts.

4. The case of the petitioner is that
since monetary limit fixed for assessment
by the ITO for return is upto Rs. 15 lacs
and if it is above Rs. 15 lacs, the
assessment
was
to
be
made
by
Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, therefore,
for that reason the assessment for the
Assessment Year 2017-18 was completed
by the Assistant Commissioner of Income
Tax, Moradabad (ACIT) vide assessment
order dated 26.11.2019 under Section
143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961).
Therefore, the notice under Section 148 of
the Act would have been issued only by the
ACIT-2, Moradabad and not by the ITO
Ward-2(1), Moradabad.

5. From the record, it appears that
thereafter, the ITO, Ward-2(1) received
certain
information
from
DDIT
(Investigation), Unit 7(4), New Delhi. It
came to light in the search conducted under
Section 132A of the Act at the premises of
Mr. Mohit Garg and others on 11.03.2018
and in subsequent investigations, which,
according to the respondent- department
revealed that an accommodation purchase
entry of Rs.20,32,46,098/- which was not
shown by the petitioner. Based on this
information, the ITO Ward-2 issued a
notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961
to the petitioner and supplied the reasons
recorded for issuance of the notice. The
petitioner submitted objection to it which
was rejected by order dated 13.09.2021
passed by the ITO-2(1), Moradabad. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition, challenging the notice
dated 31.03.2021 under Section 148 as well
as the order dated 13.09.2021 rejecting the
objection.

Submission:

6. The only submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
impugned notice under Section 148 of the
Act, 1961 issued by the respondent No.1
[ITO-2(1)] is without jurisdiction inasmuch
as the ITO Ward 2(1) is not the
jurisdictional assessing officer for the
Assessment Year 2017-18. He further
submits that jurisdictional assessing officer
for the Assessment Year 2017-18 is the
ACIT, Range-2, Moradabad. Therefore, the
impugned notice is without jurisdiction and
consequently it cannot be proceeded with
by the respondent No.1. For the same
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reason, the impugned order rejecting the
objection, also deserves to be quashed
along with the impugned notice under
Section 148.

7. Learned Central Government
Standing Counsel and the learned standing
counsel for the Income Tax Department -
respondent No.1 and 2 jointly supported the
impugned notice and the order rejecting the
objection.

Discussion and findings:

8. We have carefully considered the
submission of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record of the writ
petition.

9. Before we proceed to consider the
rival submission, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the relevant provisions of the
Act, 1961 as under:-

(i) Section 2(7A) defines the
word Assessing Officer, as under:-

"2(7A) " Assessing Officer"
means the Assistant Commissioner or
Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director
or Deputy Director or the Income- tax
Officer who is vested with the relevant
jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders
issued under sub- section (1) or sub-
section (2) of section 120 or any other
provision of this Act, and the Additional
Commissioner or Additional Director or
Joint Commissioner or Joint Director who
is directed under clause (b) of sub- section
(4) of that section to exercise or perform all
or any of the powers and functions
conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing
Officer under this Act;"

(ii) Section 120 of the Act, 1961
provides for jurisdiction of income tax
authorities as under:-

"Jurisdiction
of
income-tax
authorities:-

120. (1) Income-tax authorities
shall exercise all or any of the powers and
perform all or any of the functions conferred
on, or, as the case may be, assign to such
authorities by or under this Act in accordance
with such directions as the Board may issue
for the exercise of the powers and
performance of the functions by all or any of
those authorities.

Explanation:- For the removal of
doubts, it is hereby declared that any income-
tax authority, being an authority higher in
rank, may, if so directed by the Board,
exercise the powers and perform the
functions of the income-tax authority lower
in rank and any such direction issued by the
Board shall be deemed to be a direction
issued under sub-section-(1).

(2) The directions of the Board
under sub section (1) may authorize any other
income-tax authority to issue orders in
writing for the exercise of the powers and
performance of the functions by all or any of
the other income-tax authorities who are
subordinate to it.

(3) In issuing the directions or
orders referred to in sub-sections (1) and
(2), the Board or other income-tax
authority authorized by it may have
regard to any one or more of the following
criteria, namely:-

(a) territorial area;

(b) persons or classes of persons;

(c) income or classes of income;
and

(d) cases or classes of cases.

(4)Without
prejudice
to
the
provisions of sub- sections (1) and (2), the
Board may, by general or special order, and
subject to such conditions, restrictions or
limitations as may be specified therein,-

(a)authorise
any
Principal
Director General or Director General or
9 All. Shivaaditya Jems and Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax & Ors.
175
Principal Director or Director to perform
such functions of any other income- tax
authority as may be assigned to him by the
Board;

(b)empower
the
Principal
Director General or Director General or
Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief
Commissioner or Principal Commissioner
or Commissioner to issue orders in writing
that the powers and functions conferred on,
or as the case may be, assigned to, the
Assessing Officer by or under this Act in
respect of any specified area or persons or
classes of persons or incomes or classes of
income or cases or classes of cases, shall be
exercised or performed by an Additional
Commissioner or an Additional Director or
a Joint Commissioner or a Joint Director,
and, where any order is made under this
clause, references in any other provision of
this Act, or in any Rule made thereunder to
the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be
references
to
such
Additional
Commissioner or Additional Director or
Joint Commissioner or Joint Director by
whom the powers and functions are to be
exercised or performed under such order,
and any provision of this Act requiring
approval
or
sanction
of
the
Joint
Commissioner shall not apply.

(5)The directions and orders
referred to in sub- sections (1) and (2) may,
wherever
considered
necessary
or
appropriate for the proper management of
the work, require two or more Assessing
Officers (whether or not of the same class)
to exercise and perform, concurrently, the
powers and functions in respect of any area
or persons or classes of persons or incomes
or classes of income or cases or classes of
cases; and, where such powers and
functions are exercised and performed
concurrently by the Assessing Officers of
different classes, any authority lower in
rank amongst them shall exercise the
powers and perform the functions as any
higher authority amongst them may direct,
and, further, references in any other
provision of this Act or in any rule made
thereunder to the Assessing Officer shall be
deemed to be references to such higher
authority and any provision of this Act
requiring approval or sanction of any such
authority shall not apply.

(6)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any direction or order issued
under this section, or in section 124, the
Board may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, direct that for the purpose of
furnishing of the return of income or the
doing of any other act or thing under this
Act or any rule made thereunder by any
person or class of persons, the income- tax
authority exercising and performing the
powers and functions in relation to the said
person or class of persons shall be such
authority as may be specified in the
notification."

(iii) Section 124 of the Act, 1961
provides for jurisdiction of Assessing
Officers, as under:-

"Jurisdiction
of
Assessing
Officers

124. (1) Where by virtue of any
direction or order issued under sub- section
(1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the
Assessing Officer has been vested with
jurisdiction over any area, within the
limits of such area, he shall have
jurisdiction -

(a) in respect of any person
carrying on a business or profession, if the
place at which he carries on his business or
profession is situate within the area, or
where his business or profession is carried
on in more places than one, if the principal
place of his business or profession is situate
within the area, and

(b) in respect of any other person
residing within the area.
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) Where a question arises under
this section as to whether an Assessing
Officer has jurisdiction to assess any
person, the question shall be determined by
the Principal Director General or Director
General
or
the
Principal
Chief
Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or
the
Principal
Commissioner
or
Commissioner; or where the question is
one relating to areas within the jurisdiction
of different Principal Directors General or
Directors General or Principal Chief
Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or
Principal
Commissioners
or
Commissioners, by the Principal Directors
General or Directors General or Principal
Chief
Commissioners
or
Chief
Commissioners
or
Principal
Commissioners
or
Commissioners
concerned or, if they are not in agreement,
by the Board or by such Principal Director
General or Director General or Principal
Chief
Commissioner
or
Chief
Commissioner or Principal Commissioner
or Commissioner as the Board may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify.

(3) No person shall be entitled
to call in question the jurisdiction of an
Assessing Officer -

(a) where he has made a return
under sub- section (1) of section 115WD or
under sub- section (1) of section 139, after
the expiry of one month from the date on
which he was served with a notice under
sub-section (1) of section 142 or subsection (2) of section 115WE or sub-section
(2) of section 143 or after the completion of
the assessment, whichever is earlier;

(b) where he has made no such
return, after the expiry of the time allowed
by the notice under sub-section (2) of
section 115WD or sub- section (1) of
section 142 or under sub-section (1) of
section 115WH or under section 148 for the
making of the return or by the notice under
the first proviso to section 115WF or under
the first proviso to section 144 to show
cause why the assessment should not be
completed to the best of the judgment of
the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier.

(c) Where an action has been
taken under section 132 or section 132A,
after the expiry of one month from the date
on which he was served with a notice under
sub-section (1) of section 153A or subsection (2) of section 153C or after the
completion of the assessment, whichever is
earlier.

(4) Subject to the provisions of
sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in
question the jurisdiction of an Assessing
Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if
not satisfied with the correctness of the
claim, refer the matter for determination
under sub-section (2) before the assessment
is made.

(5)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in this section or in any direction
or order issued under section 120, every
Assessing Officer shall have all the
powers conferred by or under this Act on
an Assessing Officer in respect of the
income accruing or arising or received
within the area, if any, over which he has
been vested with jurisdiction by virtue of
the directions or orders issued under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of
section 120."

10. Thus, sub-section (1) of Section
120 of the Act, 1961 confers powers on the
Board to issue directions to the Income Tax
authorities for exercise of powers and
performance of the functions by all or any
of those authorities. Sub-section (2) of
Section 120 permits directions of the Board
made under sub-section (1) for authorising
any other income-tax authority to issue
orders in writing for the exercise of the
powers and performance of the functions
9 All. Shivaaditya Jems and Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax & Ors.
177
by all or any of the other income tax
authorities who are subordinate to it.

Sub-section (3) of Section 120
provides for the Board or other income tax
authority authorised by it to have regard to
one or more of the mentioned four criteria
in issuing directions or orders referred to in
sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 120. The
criteria are:

(a) territorial area;

(b) persons or classes of persons;

(c) incomes or classes of income;
and

(d) cases or classes of cases.

Sub-section (5) of Section 120
enables issuance of directions and orders
referred to in sub-section (1) and (2)
requiring two or more Assessing Officers
(whether or not of the same class) to
exercise and perform concurrently the
powers and functions referred to in the four
criteria mentioned in sub-section (3).

Section 124 of the Act deals with
jurisdiction vested in any Assessing Officer
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of
Section 120 of the Act with regard to
territorial area. Where any question arises
as to whether an Assessing Officer has
jurisdiction to assess any person, (qua the
territorial area), the question is required to
be determined administratively by the
authority in the manner mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 124.

Sub-section (3) of Section 124
limits and negativates the right of any
person to call in question the jurisdiction of
an Assessing Officer where any of the three
conditions mentioned in clause (a),(b) and
(c) of sub-section (3) respectively exist.
Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 124
refers to situations, inter alia, where a
person has made a return under sub-section
(1) of Section 139, who has been served
with a notice under sub-section (1) of
Section 142 or sub-section (2) of Section
143. Given the provision of clause (a) of
sub-section (3) of Section 124, no person is
entitled to call in question the jurisdiction
of an Assessing Officer after expiry of one
month from the date on which he is served
with such notice, whichever date is earlier.

Sub-section (4) of Section 124
mandates the Assessing Officer to refer the
matter for determination under sub-section
(2) before the assessment is made, if he is
not satisfied with the correctness of the
claim of the assessee calling in question the
jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, subject
to the provisions of sub-section (3).

Sub-section (5) of Section 124
which begins with a non-obstante clause, is
as under:-

"(5) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this section or in any direction
or order issued under section 120, every
Assessing Officer shall have all the powers
conferred by or under this Act on an
Assessing Officer in respect of the income
accruing or arising or received within the
area, if any, over which he has been vested
with jurisdiction by virtue of the directions
or orders issued under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) of section 120."

11. It is undisputed that ITO Ward2(1), Moradabad who issued the impugned
notice dated 31.3.2021 under Section 148
of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year
2017-18 and passed the impugned order
dated 10.9.2021/13.9.2021 under Section
148A(d) rejecting the objections, is the
Assessing Officer within the meaning of
Section 2 (7A) of the Act, 1961.

12. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that since on
account of the mandated monetary limit,
the impugned order was passed by the
ACIT-2,
Moradabad,
therefore,
only
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ACIT-2, Moradabad could have issued
notice under Section 148 of the Act and
not the ITO Ward-2(1). We do not find
any substance in the submission.

13. Section 120(1) of the Act, 1961
confers powers upon the Income Tax
Authorities to exercise all or any of the
powers and perform all or any of the
functions conferred on, or, as the case
may be, assign to such authorities by or
under this Act in accordance with such
directions as the Board may issue for the
exercise of the powers and performance
of the functions by all or any of those
authorities.

Sub-section (3) provides the
criteria to be considered by the Board in
issuing directions for purposes of subsection (1) and (2).

14. Admittedly, the Board has issued
a direction by Instruction No. 01 of 2011
dated 31.01.2011 and 6 of 2011 dated
8.4.2011 for equitable distribution of
works amongst the Assessing Officers
and
pursuant
thereto,
the
Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly
issued an order dated 19.2.2018 as
under:-

"Order

Dated 19.02.2018.

In exercise of powers conferred
on me by CBDT Instructions No. 01/2011
dated 31.01.2011 and 06/2011 dated
08.4.2011 and all other powers enabling
me in this behalf, I hereby order that the
monetary
limit
for
assigning
NonCorporate cases among Income Tax
Officers
and
Deputy/Assistant
Commissioners of Income Tax under the
charges of Pr. Commissioner of Income
Tax, Bareilly & Moradabad, falling in
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Bareilly, Region will henceforth be as
under:

Income/Loss
Declared.

ITOs
Dy./Asst. CsIT.
In
case
of
NonCorporate Returns
Upto Rs. 15
lac
Above Rs. 15 lac.

The notification will come into
effect from 1.4.2018 onwards till further
order.

(Praveen Kumar)

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

 Bareilly.

 19.2.2018."

15. The learned counsel for the
petitioner
has
also
referred
to
the
jurisdictional
chart
enclosed
with
the
objection against issuance of notice under
Section 148, showing Assessing Officer-wise
jurisdiction in respect of Corporate cases.

16. It is reiterated that Sub-section (1)
of Section 124 of the Act, 1961 provides that
where by virtue of any direction or order
issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer has
been vested with jurisdiction over any area,
within the limits of such area, he shall have
jurisdiction- (a) in respect of any person
carrying on a business or profession, if the
place at which he carries on his business or
profession is situate within the area, or where
his business or profession is carried on in
more places than one, if the principal place of
his business or profession is situate within the
area, and (b) in respect of any other person
residing within the area.

17. Thus, under sub-section (1) of
Section 124 of the Act, 1961 the Assessing
Officer
who
has
been
vested
with
9 All. Shivaaditya Jems and Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax & Ors.
179
jurisdiction over any area, shall have
jurisdiction within the limits of such area.
Sub-section (5) of Section 124 of the Act,
1961 starts with a non-obstante clause and
provides that every Assessing Officer shall
have all the powers conferred by or under
the Act,1961 on an Assessing Officer in
respect of the income accruing or arising or
received within the area, if any, over which
he has been vested with jurisdiction by
virtue of the directions or orders issued
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of
section 120. Thus, the Assessing Officer
vested with jurisdiction by virtue of
direction of sub-section (1) and (2) of
Section 120 shall have all powers conferred
by or under the Act, 1961 on an Assessing
Officer in respect of the income accruing or
arising or received within the area, if any,
over which he has been vested with
jurisdiction.

18. It has been admitted before us that
respondent
no.1
i.e
the
ITO-2(1),
Moradabad has the territorial jurisdiction
over the petitioner, but only objection to the
jurisdiction has been raised merely on the
ground that on account of pecuniary limit,
the proceedings ought to have been
initiated by ACIT-2, Moradabad.

19. Once the territorial jurisdiction of
respondent no.1 is admitted by the
petitioner, there existed no occasion for the
Assessing Officer to refer the matter for
determination under sub-section (2) of
Section 124 before the assessment was
made.

20. The facts and legal position as
discussed above leave no manner of doubt
that the respondent no.1 is the Assessing
Officer having territorial jurisdiction over
the
petitioner.
Merely
because
some
pecuniary limit has been fixed for purpose
of distribution of work between officers, it
would not mean that there shall be inherent
lack of jurisdiction of respondent no.1.
Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent
no.1 lacked inherent jurisdiction while
issuing the impugned notice under Section
148 of the Act, 1961.

21. A similar controversy came up
before the Delhi High Court in the case of
Abhishek Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer,
Ward-55 (1), New Delhi; 2018 (94)
taxmann. Com 355 (Delhi) in which it has
been held as under:-

"16. Section 120 of the Act which
relates to jurisdiction of the Income-tax
Authorities
stipulates
that
Income-tax
Authorities shall exercise any of the powers
and perform all or any of the functions
conferred or assigned to such authority by
or under this Act as per the directions of the
Board i.e., Central Board of Direct Taxes.
As per Explanation to sub-section(1), the
power can also be exercised, if directed by
the Board, by authorities higher in rank.
Under sub-section (2), the Board can issue
orders in writing for exercise of power and
performance of functions by the Incometax Authorities and while doing so in terms
of sub-section (3), the Board can take into
consideration and have regard to the fourfold criteria namely, territorial area; persons
or classes of persons; incomes or classes of
income; and cases or classes of cases. Thus,
the Act does not authoritatively confer
exclusive jurisdiction to specific Income
Tax Authority. It is left to the Board to issue
directions for exercise of power and
functions
taking
into
consideration
territorial area, class/types of persons,
income and case, and Board have been
given wide power and latitude. The said
Section by necessary implication postulates
and acknowledges that multiple or more
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
than one Assessing officer could exercise
jurisdiction
over
particular
assessee.
Concurrent jurisdictions are therefore not
an anathema but an accepted position under
the Act. The term "jurisdiction" in Section
120 of the Act has been used loosely and
not in strict sense to confer jurisdiction
exclusively to a specified and single
assessing officer, to the exclusion of others
with concurrent jurisdiction. It would refer
to "place of assessment", a term used in the
Income Tax Act, 1922. Sub-section (5) to
Section 120 of the Act again affirms and
accepts that there can be concurrent
jurisdiction of two or more assessing
officers who would exercise jurisdiction
over a particular assessee in terms of the
four-fold criteria stated in sub-section (3) to
Section 120. Second part of sub-section (5)
states that where powers and functions are
exercised
concurrently
by
Assessing
Officers of different classes, then the higher
authority can direct the lower authority in
rank amongst them to exercise the powers
and functions.

..........

..........

19. We would reiterate that subsection (1) to Section 124 states that the
Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction
over the area in terms of any direction or
order issued under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) to Section 120 of the Act.
Jurisdiction would depend upon the place
where the person carries on business or
profession or the area in which he is
residing. Sub- section (3) clearly states
that no person can call in question
jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer in
case of non-compliance and/or after the
period stipulated in clauses (a) and (b),
which as observed in S.S. Ahluwalia
(supra)
would
negate
and
reject
arguments predicated on lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Where an assessee
questions jurisdiction of the Assessing
Officer within the time limit and in terms
of sub-section (3), and the Assessing
Officer
is
not
satisfied
with
the
correctness of the claim, he is required to
refer the matter for determination under
sub-section (2) before the assessment is
made. Reference of matter under subsection (2) would not be required when
Assessing Officer accepts the claim of the
assessee and transfers the case to another
Assessing Officer in view the objection
by the assessee. (In terms of sub-section
(3) to Section 124 of the Act, the
petitioner had lost his right to question
jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer,
Ward No. 1(1), Noida.

20. Sub-section (5) to Section 124,
though limited in scope, would also be
applicable in the facts and circumstances of
the present case as the Income-Tax Officer,
Ward-1 (1), Noida had the power to assess
income accruing or arising within the area
as it is not the case of the petitioner-
assessee that the said officer did not have
jurisdiction in view of location of the bank
account and/or petitioner's place of work.
Section 124(5) of the Act saves assessment
made by an assessing officer provided that
the assessment does not bring to tax
anything other than income accruing,
arising or received in that area over which
the assessing officer exercises jurisdiction.
However, notwithstanding Section 124(5),
the Act does not postulate multiple
assessments by different assessing officers,
or assessment of part or portion of an
income
[see
Kanjimal
&
Sons Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi,
(1982) 138 ITR 391 (Delhi)]. Thus, it is
necessary that the Assessing Officers
having concurrent jurisdiction ensure that
9 All. Ghanshyam Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
181
only one of them proceeds and adjudicate.
This is the purport and objective behind
sub-section (2) to Section 124 of the Act."

22. The aforesaid judgement of Delhi
High Court only supports the view taken by
us herein above.

23. No other point has been argued
before us by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

24. For all the reasons aforestated, we
do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 181
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH TRIPATHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1663 of 2016

Ghanshyam Das & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ashutosh Pandey, Sri Ansar Ahmad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Bhavisya Sharma, Sri Raj Kumar
Mishra

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 149,
452,
504,
506,
379-Quashing
of
summoning
order-matrimonial
disputeapplicants as well as opposite party no. 2
filed several suit against each other only
with intend to create undue pressureInformant being educated person filed FIR
against the applicants-Courts are used as
a tool of harassment-Legal awareness
does
not
mean
frivolous/vexatious
litigations
and
such
litigations
are
consuming the precious time of Courtsmatter was pending since 2015, and the
entire dispute has been compromised in
2022-no useful purpose shall be served by
prolonging the proceeding of the instant
case-Thus, the entire proceedings are
quashed on the basis of compromise.(Para
1 to 22)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. B.S. Joshi & ors. Vs St. of Har. & anr.. (2003)
4 SCC 675

2. NiKhil Merchant Vs C.B.I. (2008) 9 SCC 677

3. Manoj Sharma Vs St. & ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1

4. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. (2012) 10 SCC 303

5. Narindra Singh & ors. St. of Punj. (2014) 6
SCC 466

6. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors. (2019)
AIR SC 1296
7. Shaifullah & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2013)
83 ACC 278

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash
Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2, learned A.G.A for the State and
also perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants
with a prayer to quash the summoning
order dated 17.12.2015 as well as entire
proceedings of Misc. Case No. 137 of 2015
(Tej Singh Verma vs. Ghanshyam Das and
others) (Case No.3648 of 2015), under