Harish Kumar Chhabada v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Income Tax Officer-2(1), Centralrevenue Building, Civil Line, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

(Tax Case No.138/2023) 2025:CGHC:50032-DB Digitallysigned bySISTASISTASOMAYAJULUSOMAYAJULUDate:2025.10.0917:09:25HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR+0530 AFR TAXC No. 138 of 2023 {Arising out of order dated 12-12-2022 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITA No.323/RPR/2016} -(Assessment Year 201213) Harish Kumar Chhabada, S/o Pinjaram Chhabada, Aged about 56 years,Prop. of M/s. Sona Agency, House No.490, Near Rly Line Road, SamtaColony, Raipur-492001, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Officer-2(1), CentralRevenue Building, Civil Line, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. AmitChaudhari, Senior Standing Counsel for the IncomeTax Department.Chaudhari, Senior Standing Counsel for the IncomeTax Department. -Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ. Judgment on Board(08/10/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the IT Act’), the appellantherein/assessee has preferred this appeal questioning legality,validity and correctness of the order dated 12-12-2022 passed by theof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the IT Act’), the appellantherein/assessee has preferred this appeal questioning legality,validity and correctness of the order dated 12-12-2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITANo.323/RPR/2016 by which the appellant’s statutory appeal hasbeen dismissed by the ITAT finding no merit. 2. The aforesaid appeal preferred by the appellant/assessee wasadmitted for hearing by this Court on 29-8-2025 by formulating thefollowing substantial question of law: - “Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the validity ofassessment under Section 143(3) based on a notice underSection 143(2) issued by the non-jurisdictional AssessingOfficer, solely relying on the address in the PAN?” 3. The aforesaid substantial question of law arises on the followingfactual backdrop: -factual backdrop: - 4. The appellant herein/assessee is engaged in the business of tradingin electrical goods under the name and style of M/s. Sona Agencysituated at Street of Dena Bank, Jawahar Nagar, M.G. Road, Raipur.The appellant/assessee filed his return of income for the assessmentyear 2012-13 electronically on 17-9-2012 with ITO, Ward-1(2),Raipur, declaring total income of ₹ 2,96,390/- and in the PANdatabase, at that time, his residential address was shown as HouseNo.490, Nearly Railway Line, Sachdeva Nursing Home Gali, SamtaColony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The said residential addressdetermines the assessee’s territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, on 8-8-2013, on the basis of the aforesaid PAN address, ITO, Ward-1(1),Raipur, who had jurisdiction over Samta Colony, Raipur, issuednotice to the assessee under Section 143(2) of the IT Act dated 8-8-2013, duly served on him on 21-8-2013. Thereafter, on 25-8-2014 and 12-12-2014, notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the ITAct, respectively, were issued to the assessee, during the course ofscrutiny, continuing the same line of jurisdiction based on the PANaddress. Vide notification dated 15-11-2014, territorial reallocationof wards at Raipur was undertaken and consequent upon thisrestructuring, the jurisdiction over the area comprising SamtaColony stood automatically transferred to ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipurand thereafter, the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, on 18-3-2015, pursuantto the notice issued earlier, continued the jurisdiction afterreallocation and passed the order of assessment under Section143(3) of the IT Act on 18-3-2015 determining total income at ₹28,38,520/- by including the additions as (i) disallowance underSection 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act of ₹ 4,59,219/- and (ii) addition of ₹20,82,915/- on undisclosed turnover. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 18-3-2015passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee preferred anappeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and theCIT (Appeals)-I, Raipur by its order dated 14-7-2016 partly allowedthe appeal deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), but theaddition of ₹ 20,82,915/- on undisclosed turnover was reduced to ₹11,53,939/- and disposed of the appeal accordingly. passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee preferred anappeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and theCIT (Appeals)-I, Raipur by its order dated 14-7-2016 partly allowedthe appeal deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), but theaddition of ₹ 20,82,915/- on undisclosed turnover was reduced to ₹11,53,939/- and disposed of the appeal accordingly. 6. The assessee/appellant herein not being satisfied with the part ofthe order rejecting his contention sustaining the addition of ₹11,53,939/-, preferred an appeal before the ITAT, Raipur and raisedan additional ground alleging lack of jurisdiction and invalid noticethe order rejecting his contention sustaining the addition of ₹11,53,939/-, preferred an appeal before the ITAT, Raipur and raisedan additional ground alleging lack of jurisdiction and invalid notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act. The ITAT by its impugned orderheld that the notice dated 8-8-2013 issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1),Raipur was valid being based on the PAN database residentialaddress relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the-matter of Principal Commissioner of Incometax, Mumbai -1v. IVen Interactive Ltd. in which it has been held that issuanceof notice at the PAN-based address constitutes valid assumption ofjurisdiction when the assessee has not intimated any change inaddress in the departmental database. The ITAT further held thatsubsequent transfer of jurisdiction to ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur as perthe notification dated 15-11-2014 was lawful and the assessmentframed by the AO on 18-3-2015 was valid, and relying upon theprovision contained in Section 124(3)(a) of the IT Act, the ITAT hasalso held that the assessee’s challenge was barred as he failed toraise any objection within one month of service of notice underSection 143(2) or within one month from the date of completion ofassessment and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. Questioning thatorder, the present appeal has been preferred. 7. Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellant herein/assessee, would submit that the ITAT isabsolutely unjustified in rejecting the appeal of the assessee, as theITAT has decided the appeal on the basis of service of notice underSection 143(2) of the IT Act by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur upon theassessee on the residential address as shown in the PAN database 1[2019] 418 ITR 662 (SC) 7. Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellant herein/assessee, would submit that the ITAT isabsolutely unjustified in rejecting the appeal of the assessee, as theITAT has decided the appeal on the basis of service of notice underSection 143(2) of the IT Act by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur upon theassessee on the residential address as shown in the PAN database 1[2019] 418 ITR 662 (SC) and the ITAT has not considered the fact that the assessee hascarried out his business and therefore the jurisdictional AO as perSection 2(7A), 124(1)(a), 124(1)(b) & 120(3) of the IT Act would beon the basis of his place of business and not on the basis ofresidential address shown in the PAN database. He would rely uponthe decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kanwar SinghSaini v. High Court of Delhi2 to buttress his submission. Hewould further submit that the assessment order passed by the ITO,Ward-2(1), Raipur dated 18-3-2015 after the notification dated 15-11-2014 on the basis of residential address of the assessee as perrecords of the PAN card, is invalid and liable to be quashed on theground of lack of inherent jurisdiction, as the assessee has businessincome and has filed return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 and hence under Sections 124(1)(a) & 124(1)(b) of the IT Act,jurisdiction of AO would be on the basis of his place of business, andnot as per residential address mentioned in the PAN card. Hewould further rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in thematter of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal3 (paragraphs 31 &32) and also upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the-matter of Principal Commissioner of Incometax v. CosmatTraders (P.) Ltd.4 as also upon the decision of the Bombay High-Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income tax1, Nagpurv. Lalitkumar Bardia5 in support of his contention. Prayer has 2(2012) 4 SCC 307 3[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) 4[2023] 146 taxmann.com 207 (Calcutta) 5[2018] 404 ITR 63 (Bombay) been made to set aside the order of the ITAT in toto by granting theappeal. 8. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent herein/Revenue, would support the impugned orderand oppose the appeal and submit that the ITAT is absolutelyjustified in holding that the order dated 18-3-2015 passed by the AOi.e. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur is in accordance with law, as the noticedated 8-8-2013 issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur was validbeing based on PAN database residential address of the assesseeand by the notification dated 15-11-2014, by operation of law, thejurisdiction originally exercised by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipurvalidly devolved upon the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, which has passedthe assessment order. The assessee has failed to raise objectionunder Section 124(3) of the IT Act within one month of service ofnotice or within one month from the date of issuance of notice orcompletion of assessment, as such, the appeal has rightly beendismissed by the ITAT.respondent herein/Revenue, would support the impugned orderand oppose the appeal and submit that the ITAT is absolutelyjustified in holding that the order dated 18-3-2015 passed by the AOi.e. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur is in accordance with law, as the noticedated 8-8-2013 issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur was validbeing based on PAN database residential address of the assesseeand by the notification dated 15-11-2014, by operation of law, thejurisdiction originally exercised by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipurvalidly devolved upon the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, which has passedthe assessment order. The assessee has failed to raise objectionunder Section 124(3) of the IT Act within one month of service ofnotice or within one month from the date of issuance of notice orcompletion of assessment, as such, the appeal has rightly beendismissed by the ITAT. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered theirrival submissions made herein-above and also gone through therecord with utmost circumspection.rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through therecord with utmost circumspection. 10. As noticed herein-above, the assessee has filed his return of incomefor the assessment year 2012-13 electronically on 17-9-2012 with theITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur, declaring total income of ₹ 2,96,390/- andin the PAN database, at that time, his residential address was shownfor the assessment year 2012-13 electronically on 17-9-2012 with theITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur, declaring total income of ₹ 2,96,390/- andin the PAN database, at that time, his residential address was shown as House No.490, Nearly Railway Line, Sachdeva Nursing HomeGali, Samta Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. On the basis of the saidPAN database address, the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, who hadjurisdiction over Samta Colony, Raipur, issued notice under Section143(2) of the IT Act on 8-8-2013, which was undisputedly servedupon the assessee on 21-8-2013. Thereafter, notices under Sections143(2) & 142(1) of the IT Act were issued to the assessee on 25-8-2014 and 12-12-2014, respectively, during the course of scrutiny,which were served upon the assessee on the basis of the addressshown in the PAN database. However, by notification dated 15-11-2014, the territorial reallocation of wards at Raipur was undertakenand accordingly, the jurisdiction over the area comprising SamtaColony has been transferred to the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, as such,by operation of law, the jurisdiction originally exercised by the ITO,Ward-1(1) stands transferred to the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, whohas passed the assessment order making additions as mentionedabove to the extent of ₹ 20,82,915/-. Till this date, no objection wasraised to the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur by theassessee and the assessee has preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who has considered the appeal and granted relief in part,as the addition of ₹ 20,82,915/- was reduced to ₹ 11,53,939/- onundisclosed turnover. Before the CIT (Appeals), no ground qua thejurisdiction of the Assessing Officer i.e. the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipurwas raised by the assessee. When the appeal was partly rejected bythe CIT (Appeals) and when further appeal was filed before the ITAT, the ground with regard to lack of jurisdiction by the AO underthe ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur was raised which was considered by theITAT and rejected on the following grounds: - 1. Notice dated 8-8-2013 was issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1),Raipur, under Section 143(2) of the IT Act to the assessee, whohas jurisdiction over Samta Colony, as in PAN database of theassessee, residential address of the assessee was shown to beSamta Colony, Raipur.Raipur, under Section 143(2) of the IT Act to the assessee, whohas jurisdiction over Samta Colony, as in PAN database of theassessee, residential address of the assessee was shown to beSamta Colony, Raipur. 2. Subsequent transfer of jurisdiction to the ITO, Ward-2(1),Raipur on account of the notification dated 15-11-2014 was byoperation of law and therefore the assessment framed by theAO is valid.Raipur on account of the notification dated 15-11-2014 was byoperation of law and therefore the assessment framed by theAO is valid. 3. The assessee did not raise any ground as required underSection 124(3)(a) of the IT Act till the appeal was partlygranted by the CIT (Appeals) and therefore the ground ofjurisdiction was barred by virtue of the provision contained inSection 124(3)(a) of the IT Act.Section 124(3)(a) of the IT Act till the appeal was partlygranted by the CIT (Appeals) and therefore the ground ofjurisdiction was barred by virtue of the provision contained inSection 124(3)(a) of the IT Act. 3. The assessee did not raise any ground as required underSection 124(3)(a) of the IT Act till the appeal was partlygranted by the CIT (Appeals) and therefore the ground ofjurisdiction was barred by virtue of the provision contained inSection 124(3)(a) of the IT Act.Section 124(3)(a) of the IT Act till the appeal was partlygranted by the CIT (Appeals) and therefore the ground ofjurisdiction was barred by virtue of the provision contained inSection 124(3)(a) of the IT Act. 11. Admittedly, in the PAN database of the appellant herein/assessee,the address shown is Samta Colony, Raipur and after reallocation ofwards at Raipur by the notification dated 15-11-2014, the ITO,Ward-2(1), Raipur had the jurisdiction over Samta Colony, andthus, by operation of law, the jurisdiction originally exercised by theITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, who had issued notice under Section 143(2)of the IT Act on 8-8-2013 based on PAN database residentialthe address shown is Samta Colony, Raipur and after reallocation ofwards at Raipur by the notification dated 15-11-2014, the ITO,Ward-2(1), Raipur had the jurisdiction over Samta Colony, andthus, by operation of law, the jurisdiction originally exercised by theITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, who had issued notice under Section 143(2)of the IT Act on 8-8-2013 based on PAN database residential address, validly devolved upon the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur. 12. The Supreme Court in I-Ven Interactive Ltd.’s case (supra) hasheld that a notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act issued at theaddress available in the assessee’s PAN database is valid andconstitutes proper service, even if the assessee has subsequentlychanged its address but failed to update the same in the PAN or departmental database, and observed as under: - “6.1… It appears that no application was made by theassessee to change the address in the PAN data base and in thePAN database the old address continued. Therefore, inabsence of any intimation to the Assessing Officer with respectto change in address, the Assessing Officer was justified inissuing the notice at the address available as per the PANdatabase. Therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot be said t0have committed any error and in fact the Assessing Officerwas justified in sending the notice at the address as per thePAN database. …” 13. Admittedly, in this case, the assessee has not made any application for change in address to the concerned Assessing Officer andtherefore the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is justified inprocessing the return of income filed by the assessee based on hisPAN database residential address. therefore the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is justified inprocessing the return of income filed by the assessee based on hisPAN database residential address. 14. The next submission made on behalf of the respondent herein/Revenue is that the appellant herein/assessee did not raise anyobjection with regard to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer till hefiles appeal before the ITAT. In this regard, Section 124(3)(a) of theIT Act may be noticed herein profitably, which states as under: -Revenue is that the appellant herein/assessee did not raise anyobjection with regard to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer till hefiles appeal before the ITAT. In this regard, Section 124(3)(a) of theIT Act may be noticed herein profitably, which states as under: - “124. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers.—(1) xxx xxx (Tax Case No.138/2023) (2) xxxxxxxxx (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question thejurisdiction of an Assessing Officer— (a) where he has made a return under sub-section (1) ofsection 115WD or under sub-section (1) of section 139,after the expiry of one month from the date on which hewas served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or sub-section (2)of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment,whichever is earlier; xxxxxxxxx” “124. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers.—(1) xxx xxx (Tax Case No.138/2023) (2) xxxxxxxxx (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question thejurisdiction of an Assessing Officer— (a) where he has made a return under sub-section (1) ofsection 115WD or under sub-section (1) of section 139,after the expiry of one month from the date on which hewas served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or sub-section (2)of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment,whichever is earlier; xxxxxxxxx” 15. A careful perusal of Section 124(3)(a) of the IT Act would show that the assessee cannot question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officerbeyond the period of one month from the date of service of notice orafter completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. As such,Section 124(3) stipulates a bar to any contention about lack ofjurisdiction of an Assessing Officer. 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Seth Teomal v.-6Commissioner of Incometax and another has consideredthe similar provisions as they existed under the Income Tax Act,1922 in the light of its earlier pronouncement and of the FederalCourt. Heading of Section 64 of the old Income Tax Act was “placeof assessment” and its third proviso reads as follows: - “Provided further that if the place of assessment is called inquestion by an assessee the Income Tax Officer shall, if notsatisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter fordetermination under this sub-section before assessment ismade.” Thereafter, their Lordships considered and held at the end of para 7 as under: - “Thus, under s. 64(3) the question of determination as to theplace of assessment only arises if an objection is taken by theassessee and the Income Tax Officer has any doubts as to thematter. But the determination is to be by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax or the Central Board of Revenue. The Act doesnot ‘contemplate any other authority.”place of assessment only arises if an objection is taken by theassessee and the Income Tax Officer has any doubts as to thematter. But the determination is to be by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax or the Central Board of Revenue. The Act doesnot ‘contemplate any other authority.” 17. Section 124(4) of the IT Act provides that where an assessee calls inquestion the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the AssessingOfficer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, referthe matter for adjudication under sub-section (2) before theassessment is made to the Principal Director General or DirectorGeneral or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner orPrincipal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the Board bynotification specifies. It necessarily excludes any other Court orauthority. Complete machinery for determination of place ofassessment or the authority for assessment is provided for underSection 124. 18. The scheme of the IT Act shows that no appeal in regard to the placeof assessment is contemplated under the Act. Under Section 124 ofthe IT Act, a question as to the place of assessment, when it arises isdetermined by the Commissioner, by the Commissioners if morethan one Commissioner is involved and then by the Board. TheSupreme Court in Seth Teomal (supra) has quoted with approval ajudgment of the Federal Court in the matter of Wallace Bros. &Co. Ltd. v. CIT7, the relevant extract of which is reproducedof assessment is contemplated under the Act. Under Section 124 ofthe IT Act, a question as to the place of assessment, when it arises isdetermined by the Commissioner, by the Commissioners if morethan one Commissioner is involved and then by the Board. TheSupreme Court in Seth Teomal (supra) has quoted with approval ajudgment of the Federal Court in the matter of Wallace Bros. &Co. Ltd. v. CIT7, the relevant extract of which is reproduced 7[1945] 13 ITR 39 (FC) herein-below: - 7[1945] 13 ITR 39 (FC) herein-below: - “16.The question then arises whether the objection as to theplace of assessee i.e. by the Income Tax Officer of Calcuttacould be challenged in appeal to the Appellate AssistantCommissioner and then before the Appellate Tribunal. In ouropinion it could not be. The scheme of the Act shows that noappeal in regard to the objection to the place of assessment iscontemplated under the Act. Under proviso (iii) of Section64(3) of the Act a question as to the place of assessment, whenit arises, is determined by the Commissioner. Any such ordercannot be made a ground of appeal to the Appellate AssistantCommissioner under Section 30 of the Act which provides forappeals against orders of assessment and other ordersenumerated in Section 30 but no appeals is there providedagainst orders made under Section 64(3). Similarly appeals tothe Appellate Tribunal which lie under Section 33 of the Actalso do not provide for any appeal on the question of the placeof assessment. In Wallace Brother case [1945 FCR 65] at p.79 Spens, C.J., after referring to Section 64(3) and the provisothereto said: “These provisions clearly indicate that the matter is moreone of administrative convenience than of jurisdiction andin any event it is not one for adjudication by the Court. …This confirms us in the view that the scheme of the Actdoes not contemplate an objection as to the place ofassessment being raised on an appeal against theassessment after the assessment has been made. As wehave already pointed out, the objection was not raised inthe present case even before the Appellate Income TaxOfficer but only before the Appellate Tribunal.” There is nothing in the Bidi Supply case [1956 SCR 267] whichin any way detracts from the efficacy of the decision of theFederal Court in Wallace Brother case [1945 FCR 65]. Wehave already said that Bidi Supply case [1956 SCR 267] dealswith the vires of Section 5(7A).” 19. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Federal Court in Wallace Bros. & Co. Ltd. (supra) followed by their Lordships of theSupreme Court in Seth Teomal(supra), further followed by theAllahabad High Court in the matter of Commissioner of -Incometax, Gorakhpur v. All India Children Care &Educational Development Society8, the ITAT has rightlydeclined to consider the question as to the place of assessment.Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the matter of Deputy-Commissioner of Incometax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology9 has clearly held that theassessee has to question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officerunder Section 124(3)(a) within the stipulated time of 30 days fromthe date of receipt of notice under Section 142(1) and thereafter,interfered with the order of the High Court holding as under: - “1.The impugned order set asides the assessment for A.Y.2014-2015 the ground that the jurisdictional officer had notadjudicated upon the returns. The jurisdiction had beenchanged after the returns were filed. However, the recordsalso reveals that the assessee had participated pursuant to thenotice issued under section 142(1) and had not questioned thejurisdiction of the assessing officer. Section 124(3)(a) of theIncome-tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning thejurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within30 days of receipt of notice under section 142(1).”2014-2015 the ground that the jurisdictional officer had notadjudicated upon the returns. The jurisdiction had beenchanged after the returns were filed. However, the recordsalso reveals that the assessee had participated pursuant to thenotice issued under section 142(1) and had not questioned thejurisdiction of the assessing officer. Section 124(3)(a) of theIncome-tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning thejurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within30 days of receipt of notice under section 142(1).” 20.The Delhi High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income 20.The Delhi High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income -10TaxIII v. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd. hasheld that facially, Section 124(3) of the IT Act stipulates a bar to anycontention about lack of jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, andobserved as under: - “5.… Facially, Section 124(3) stipulates a bar to anycontention about lack of jurisdiction of an AO. It is not as ifthe provisions of the Act disable an assessee from contendingthat in the given circumstances the AO lacks jurisdiction;contention about lack of jurisdiction of an AO. It is not as ifthe provisions of the Act disable an assessee from contendingthat in the given circumstances the AO lacks jurisdiction; 8[2013] 357 ITR 134 (Allahabad) 9[2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC) 10 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7040 rather Section 124(3) limits the availability of those options atthe threshold. The assessee upon receipt of notice of the kindmentioned in Clause (a) and (b) of sub-section 3 has theoption to urge the question of jurisdiction; the expressed tenorand terms of the provisions clarify that such objections are tobe articulated at the threshold or at the earlier points of time.The two points of time specified in Section 124(3)(a) are asunder: (i) Within one month from the date of service of notice or; (ii) After completion of assessment - whichever is earlier.” 21. As such, from the aforesaid discussion, it is quite vivid that theappellant/assessee was served with notice under Section 143(2) ofthe IT Act on 8-8-2013, which was served upon him on 21-8-2013and he did not raise objection qua jurisidiciton of the AssesingOfficer till his appeal was decided by the CIT (Appeals) on 14-7-2016. The assessee also did not raise any objection regardingjurisdiction upon completion of his assessment. As such, the pleawith regard to territorial jurisdiction of the ITO was barred by virtueof Section 124(3)(a) of the IT Act. Even otherwise, by thenotification dated 15-11-2014, the territorial reallocation of wards atRaipur was undertaken and thus by operation of law, validly, theITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur has been conferred with the jurisdictionafter reallocation of wards. Therefore, the ITAT is absolutelyjustified in not entertaining the question with regard to jurisdictionof the AO. appellant/assessee was served with notice under Section 143(2) ofthe IT Act on 8-8-2013, which was served upon him on 21-8-2013and he did not raise objection qua jurisidiciton of the AssesingOfficer till his appeal was decided by the CIT (Appeals) on 14-7-2016. The assessee also did not raise any objection regardingjurisdiction upon completion of his assessment. As such, the pleawith regard to territorial jurisdiction of the ITO was barred by virtueof Section 124(3)(a) of the IT Act. Even otherwise, by thenotification dated 15-11-2014, the territorial reallocation of wards atRaipur was undertaken and thus by operation of law, validly, theITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur has been conferred with the jurisdictionafter reallocation of wards. Therefore, the ITAT is absolutelyjustified in not entertaining the question with regard to jurisdictionof the AO. 22. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellantherein/assessee in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra), RajeevBansal’s case (supra), Cosmat Traders (P.) Ltd.’s case (supra)herein/assessee in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra), RajeevBansal’s case (supra), Cosmat Traders (P.) Ltd.’s case (supra) Soma (Tax Case No.138/2023) and Lalitkumar Bardia’scase (supra) are clearly distinguishable in view of the aforesaid conclusion reached herein-above. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the substantial question of law isanswered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal, it deserves tobe and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their owncost(s). Sd/-(Sanjay K. Agrawal)Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal)Judge