JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') arises out of the order dated 25-5-2004 passed by the Tribunal, Lucknow in respect of the assessment year 1993-94.
2. The appeal has been admitted vide order dated 17-11-200.4. Only one substantial question of law has been framed in the memo of appeal, which is as follows:
Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in annulling the assessment on the ground that the assessing officer completing the assessment did not have the jurisdiction over the case without appreciating that the assessee had not challenged the jurisdiction of the said assessing officer within one month of the receipt of notice under Section 143(2)/142(l) as required under Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
The respondent assessee had filed the return of income-tax under Section 139(1) of the Act. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I (1), Lucknow.
Subsequently under the order dated 24-5-1995 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow the jurisdiction was transferred to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2), Lucknow. However, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (3), Lucknow had issued the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, which was served upon the respondent assessee on 18-11-1995. The respondent assessee appeared and participated in the proceedings. He vide letter dated 21-3-1996 raised an objection regarding jurisdiction, which is to the following effect:
It may be mentioned that since switch over of assessment on territorial basis, the firm is functioning at C-1.2, Mandir Park Lane, Mahanagar Extension, Lucknow and the assessee resides at. 3, Gokhale Marg, Lucknow and as such this aspect of the case may also please be duly considered.
The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I (3), Lucknow vide order dated 29-3-1996 completed the assessment. The question regarding jurisdiction was raised in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Lucknow, who did not agree vide order dated 16-1-1997. The matter was taken up further before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 25-5-2004 had held that without order of the transfer Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (3) cannot assume jurisdiction over the assessee and, therefore, the assessment framed by him is nullity and without jurisdiction.
4. We have heard Sri D.D. Chopra, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue and Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. Sri D.D. Chopra has submitted that in view of the specific provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, the objection regarding jurisdiction should have been raised within 30 days from the date of service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and in the present case no such objection having been raised within the stipulated period, the respondent assessee could not have raised any such objection beyond that period. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not dealt with the specific finding given by the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue.
According to him, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to law.
5. Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent assessee on the other hand has submitted that the respondent assessee was not aware about the transfer of jurisdiction from Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2) to Ward-1 (3) and, therefore, he could not have raised any objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (3) did not have any jurisdiction to pass the assessment order and, therefore, it was nullity as rightly held by the Tribunal. He also referred the provisions of Section 127(3) of the Act, which deals with the transfer of the case from one assessing authority to another and has submitted that if the transfer order is wholly without jurisdiction no power can be conferred upon the assessing authority to frame the assessment.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the various pleas of the learned Counsel for the parties. From the facts stated above, we find that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act had been served upon the assessee on 18-11-1995. The provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act are specific and clear that an assessee or any other person should have raised objection regarding jurisdiction within 30 days from the date of the notice i.e., the service. In the present case, objection, if any, was raised only on 21-3-1996, which is much beyond the period of 30 days as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act. It is well settled that there is no place for equity in tax laws. Whether the assessee is under a factual impression or has no knowledge of the order of transfer in a particular case and if he is to raise any objection regarding jurisdiction, he should do so within 30 days and not beyond that and the same having not been done in the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in annulling the assessment on this ground alone.
7. Sri Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent assessee has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the merits of the other points raised in the appeal.
8. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated 25-5-2004 and remit the matter to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits.
9. In view of the foregoing discussions, the substantial question of law raised in the appeal stands answered in favour of the revenue and against the respondent assessee.
10. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Parties shall bear their own costs.