Wtax/1047/2021 Of Shivaaditiya Jems And Jewellery Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ito-2(1) And 2 Others

1 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1047 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shivaaditiya Jems And Jewellery Private LimitedRespondent :- Income Tax Officer Ito-2(1) And 2 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Suyash AgarwalCounsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Mahajan,Manu Ghildyal,Sudarshan Singh Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1.Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, SriGaurav Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondentno.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 certiorariquashing the notice dated 31.3.2021 issued under Section 148 ofthe Act, for A.Y. 2017-18 issued by the Income Tax OfficerITO-2(1), Moradabad, respondent no.1(Annexure no.7). (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorariquashing the order dated 13.9.2021 passed by Income TaxOfficer ITO-2(1), Moradabad respondent no.1, rejecting theobjection of the petitioner (Annexure no.13). (iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Prohibitionrestraining 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 hasbeen admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us that ITOWard-2(1) is the Assessing Officer who has territorial jurisdiction over thepetitioner. Facts. 4.The case of the petitioner is that since monetary limit fixed forassessment 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/DeputyCommissioner, therefore, for that reason the assessment for theAssessment Year 2017-18 was completed by the Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Moradabad (ACIT) vide assessment order dated26.11.2019 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafterreferred to as the Act, 1961). Therefore, the notice under Section 148 ofthe Act would have been issued only by the ACIT-2, Moradabad and notby 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), NewDelhi. It came to light in the search conducted under Section 132A of theAct at the premises of Mr. Mohit Garg and others on 11.03.2018 and insubsequent investigations, which, according to the respondent-department revealed that an accommodation purchase entry ofRs.20,32,46,098/- which was not shown by the petitioner. Based on thisinformation, the ITO Ward-2 issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act,1961 to the petitioner and supplied the reasons recorded for issuance ofthe notice. The petitioner submitted objection to it which was rejected byorder dated 13.09.2021 passed by the ITO-2(1), Moradabad. Beingaggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging thenotice dated 31.03.2021 under Section 148 as well as the order dated13.09.2021 rejecting the objection. Submission: 6.The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that theimpugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued by therespondent No.1 [ITO-2(1)] is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the ITOWard 2(1) is not the jurisdictional assessing officer for the AssessmentYear 2017-18. He further submits that jurisdictional assessing officer for Submission: 6.The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that theimpugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued by therespondent No.1 [ITO-2(1)] is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the ITOWard 2(1) is not the jurisdictional assessing officer for the AssessmentYear 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 itcannot be proceeded with by the respondent No.1. For the same reason,the impugned order rejecting the objection, also deserves to be quashedalong with the impugned notice under Section 148. 7.Learned Central Government Standing Counsel and the learnedstanding counsel for the Income Tax Department - respondent No.1 and 2jointly supported the impugned notice and the order rejecting theobjection. Discussion and findings: 8.We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counselfor the parties and perused the record of the writ petition. 9.Before we proceed to consider the rival submission, it would beappropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act, 1961 asunder:- (i) Section 2(7A) defines the word Assessing Officer, as under:- “2(7A) " Assessing Officer" means the Assistant Commissioner orDeputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director or theIncome- tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction byvirtue of directions or orders issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120 or any other provision of this Act, and theAdditional Commissioner or Additional Director or JointCommissioner or Joint Director who is directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of thepowers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an AssessingOfficer under this Act;” (ii) Section 120 of the Act, 1961 provides for jurisdiction of incometax authorities as under:- "Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities:- 120. (1) Income-tax authorities shall exercise all or any of the powersand perform all or any of the functions conferred on, or, as the casemay be, assign to such authorities by or under this Act in accordancewith such directions as the Board may issue for the exercise of thepowers and performance of the functions by all or any of thoseauthorities. Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that anyincome- tax authority, being an authority higher in rank, may, if sodirected by the Board, exercise the powers and perform the functions ofthe income-tax authority lower in rank and any such direction issued bythe 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 anyother income-tax authority to issue orders in writing for the exercise ofthe powers and performance of the functions by all or any of the otherincome-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 itmay 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), theBoard 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 orPrincipal Director or Director to perform such functions of any otherincome- tax authority as may be assigned to him by the Board; (3) In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub-sections (1)and (2), the Board or other income-tax authority authorized by itmay 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), theBoard 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 orPrincipal Director or Director to perform such functions of any otherincome- tax authority as may be assigned to him by the Board; (b)empower the Principal Director General or Director General orPrincipal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or PrincipalCommissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that thepowers and functions conferred on, or as the case may be, assigned to,the Assessing Officer by or under this Act in respect of any specifiedarea or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income orcases or classes of cases, shall be exercised or performed by anAdditional Commissioner or an Additional Director or a JointCommissioner or a Joint Director, and, where any order is made underthis clause, references in any other provision of this Act, or in any Rulemade thereunder to the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to bereferences to such Additional Commissioner or Additional Director orJoint Commissioner or Joint Director by whom the powers and functionsare to be exercised or performed under such order, and any provision ofthis Act requiring approval or sanction of the Joint Commissioner shallnot apply. (5)The directions and orders referred to in sub- sections (1) and (2) may,wherever considered necessary or appropriate for the propermanagement 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 ofpersons 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 authoritylower in rank amongst them shall exercise the powers and perform thefunctions as any higher authority amongst them may direct, and, further,references in any other provision of this Act or in any rule madethereunder to the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be references tosuch higher authority and any provision of this Act requiring approval orsanction of any such authority shall not apply. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any direction or order issuedunder this section, or in section 124, the Board may, by notification inthe Official Gazette, direct that for the purpose of furnishing of thereturn of income or the doing of any other act or thing under this Act orany rule made thereunder by any person or class of persons, the income-tax authority exercising and performing the powers and functions inrelation to the said person or class of persons shall be such authority asmay be specified in the notification." (iii) Section 124 of the Act, 1961 provides for jurisdiction ofAssessing 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 hasbeen vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of sucharea, he shall have jurisdiction - (a) in respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if theplace at which he carries on his business or profession is situate withinthe area, or where his business or profession is carried on in more placesthan one, if the principal place of his business or profession is situatewithin the area, and (iii) Section 124 of the Act, 1961 provides for jurisdiction ofAssessing 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 hasbeen vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of sucharea, he shall have jurisdiction - (a) in respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if theplace at which he carries on his business or profession is situate withinthe area, or where his business or profession is carried on in more placesthan one, if the principal place of his business or profession is situatewithin the area, and (b) in respect of any other person residing within the area. (2) Where a question arises under this section as to whether an AssessingOfficer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall bedetermined by the Principal Director General or Director General or thePrincipal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the PrincipalCommissioner or Commissioner; or where the question is one relating toareas within the jurisdiction of different Principal Directors General orDirectors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or ChiefCommissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners, by thePrincipal Directors General or Directors General or Principal ChiefCommissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners orCommissioners concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Boardor by such Principal Director General or Director General or PrincipalChief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioneror Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the OfficialGazette, specify. (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction ofan Assessing Officer - (a) where he has made a return under sub- section (1) of section 115WDor under sub- section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one monthfrom the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1)of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or sub-section (2) ofsection 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever isearlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry of the timeallowed 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 orunder section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under thefirst proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144 toshow cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best ofthe 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 witha notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) ofsection 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever isearlier. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls inquestion the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the AssessingOfficer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer thematter for determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment ismade. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any directionor order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officer shall have allthe powers conferred by or under this Act on an Assessing Officer inrespect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area,if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue ofthe directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section(2) of section 120." (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls inquestion the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the AssessingOfficer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer thematter for determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment ismade. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any directionor order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officer shall have allthe powers conferred by or under this Act on an Assessing Officer inrespect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area,if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue ofthe 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 conferspowers on the Board to issue directions to the Income Tax authorities forexercise of powers and performance of the functions by all or any of thoseauthorities. Sub-section (2) of Section 120 permits directions of the Boardmade under sub-section (1) for authorising any other income-tax authorityto issue orders in writing for the exercise of the powers and performanceof the functions by all or any of the other income tax authorities who aresubordinate to it. Sub-section (3) of Section 120 provides for the Board or otherincome 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 andorders referred to in sub-section (1) and (2) requiring two or moreAssessing Officers (whether or not of the same class) to exercise andperform concurrently the powers and functions referred to in the fourcriteria mentioned in sub-section (3). Section 124 of the Act deals with jurisdiction vested in anyAssessing Officer under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 120of the Act with regard to territorial area. Where any question arises as towhether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, (quathe territorial area), the question is required to be determinedadministratively by the authority in the manner mentioned in sub-section(2) of Section 124. Sub-section (3) of Section 124 limits and negativates the right ofany person to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officerwhere any of the three conditions mentioned in clause (a),(b) and (c) ofsub-section (3) respectively exist. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section124 refers to situations, inter alia, where a person has made a return undersub-section (1) of Section 139, who has been served with a notice undersub-section (1) of Section 142 or sub-section (2) of Section 143. Giventhe provision of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 124, no person isentitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer afterexpiry 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 torefer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) before theassessment is made, if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claimof 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-obstanteclause, is as under:- “(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in anydirection or order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officershall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act on an AssessingOfficer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received withinthe area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction byvirtue of the directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120.” Sub-section (5) of Section 124 which begins with a non-obstanteclause, is as under:- “(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in anydirection or order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officershall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act on an AssessingOfficer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received withinthe area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction byvirtue of the directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120.” 11.It is undisputed that ITO Ward-2(1), Moradabad who issued theimpugned notice dated 31.3.2021 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 forthe Assessment Year 2017-18 and passed the impugned order dated10.9.2021/13.9.2021 under Section 148A(d) rejecting the objections, isthe 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 sinceon account of the mandated monetary limit, the impugned order waspassed by the ACIT-2, Moradabad, therefore, only ACIT-2, Moradabadcould have issued notice under Section 148 of the Act and not the ITOWard-2(1). We do not find any substance in the submission. 13.Section 120(1) of the Act, 1961 confers powers upon the IncomeTax Authorities to exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or anyof the functions conferred on, or, as the case may be, assign to suchauthorities by or under this Act in accordance with such directions as theBoard may issue for the exercise of the powers and performance of thefunctions by all or any of those authorities. Sub-section (3) provides the criteria to be considered by the Boardin issuing directions for purposes of sub-section (1) and (2). 14.Admittedly, the Board has issued a direction by Instruction No. 01of 2011 dated 31.01.2011 and 6 of 2011 dated 8.4.2011 for equitabledistribution of works amongst the Assessing Officers and pursuantthereto, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly issued an orderdated 19.2.2018 as under:- “Order Dated 19.02.2018. In exercise of powers conferred on me by CBDT Instructions No. 01/2011dated 31.01.2011 and 06/2011 dated 08.4.2011 and all other powers enabling me inthis behalf, I hereby order that the monetary limit for assigning Non-Corporate casesamong Income Tax Officers and Deputy/Assistant Commissioners of Income Taxunder the charges of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly & Moradabad, fallingin Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly, Region will henceforth be as under: The notification will come into effect from 1.4.2018 onwards till further order. (Praveen Kumar) Chief Commissioner of Income TaxBareilly. 19.2.2018.” 15.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to thejurisdictional chart enclosed with the objection against issuance of noticeunder Section 148, showing Assessing Officer-wise jurisdiction in respectof Corporate cases. 16.It is reiterated that Sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the Act, 1961provides that where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer hasbeen 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 orprofession is situate within the area, or where his business or profession iscarried on in more places than one, if the principal place of his business orprofession is situate within the area, and (b) in respect of any other personresiding within the area. 16.It is reiterated that Sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the Act, 1961provides that where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer hasbeen 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 orprofession is situate within the area, or where his business or profession iscarried on in more places than one, if the principal place of his business orprofession is situate within the area, and (b) in respect of any other personresiding within the area. 17.Thus, under sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the Act, 1961 theAssessing Officer who has been vested with jurisdiction over any area,shall have jurisdiction within the limits of such area. Sub-section (5) ofSection 124 of the Act, 1961 starts with a non-obstante clause andprovides that every Assessing Officer shall have all the powers conferredby or under the Act,1961 on an Assessing Officer in respect of the incomeaccruing or arising or received within the area, if any, over which he hasbeen vested with jurisdiction by virtue of the directions or orders issuedunder sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120. Thus, theAssessing Officer vested with jurisdiction by virtue of direction of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 120 shall have all powers conferred by orunder the Act, 1961 on an Assessing Officer in respect of the incomeaccruing or arising or received within the area, if any, over which he hasbeen 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 onlyobjection to the jurisdiction has been raised merely on the ground that onaccount of pecuniary limit, the proceedings ought to have been initiatedby ACIT-2, Moradabad. 19.Once the territorial jurisdiction of respondent no.1 is admitted bythe petitioner, there existed no occasion for the Assessing Officer to referthe matter for determination under sub-section (2) of Section 124 beforethe assessment was made. 20.The facts and legal position as discussed above leave no manner ofdoubt that the respondent no.1 is the Assessing Officer having territorialjurisdiction over the petitioner. Merely because some pecuniary limit hasbeen fixed for purpose of distribution of work between officers, it wouldnot mean that there shall be inherent lack of jurisdiction of respondentno.1. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent no.1 lacked inherentjurisdiction while issuing the impugned notice under Section 148 of theAct, 1961. 21.A similar controversy came up before the Delhi High Court in thecase of Abhishek Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-55 (1), NewDelhi; 2018 (94) taxmann. Com 355 (Delhi) in which it has been held asunder:- 20.The facts and legal position as discussed above leave no manner ofdoubt that the respondent no.1 is the Assessing Officer having territorialjurisdiction over the petitioner. Merely because some pecuniary limit hasbeen fixed for purpose of distribution of work between officers, it wouldnot mean that there shall be inherent lack of jurisdiction of respondentno.1. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent no.1 lacked inherentjurisdiction while issuing the impugned notice under Section 148 of theAct, 1961. 21.A similar controversy came up before the Delhi High Court in thecase of Abhishek Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-55 (1), NewDelhi; 2018 (94) taxmann. Com 355 (Delhi) in which it has been held asunder:- “16. Section 120 of the Act which relates to jurisdiction of the Income-tax Authorities stipulates that Income-tax Authorities shall exercise anyof the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred orassigned to such authority by or under this Act as per the directions ofthe Board i.e., Central Board of Direct Taxes. As per Explanation tosub-section(1), the power can also be exercised, if directed by theBoard, by authorities higher in rank. Under sub-section (2), the Boardcan issue orders in writing for exercise of power and performance offunctions by the Income-tax Authorities and while doing so in terms ofsub-section (3), the Board can take into consideration and have regardto the four-fold criteria namely, territorial area; persons or classes ofpersons; incomes or classes of income; and cases or classes of cases.Thus, the Act does not authoritatively confer exclusive jurisdiction tospecific Income Tax Authority. It is left to the Board to issue directionsfor exercise of power and functions taking into consideration territorialarea, class/types of persons, income and case, and Board have beengiven wide power and latitude. The said Section by necessaryimplication postulates and acknowledges that multiple or more than oneAssessing officer could exercise jurisdiction over particular assessee.Concurrent jurisdictions are therefore not an anathema but an acceptedposition under the Act. The term "jurisdiction" in Section 120of the Acthas been used loosely and not in strict sense to confer jurisdictionexclusively to a specified and single assessing officer, to the exclusionof others with concurrent jurisdiction. It would refer to "place ofassessment", a term used in the Income Tax Act, 1922. Sub-section (5)to Section 120of the Act again affirms and accepts that there can beconcurrent jurisdiction of two or more assessing officers who wouldexercise jurisdiction over a particular assessee in terms of the four-foldcriteria stated in sub-section (3) to Section 120. Second part of sub-section (5) states that where powers and functions are exercisedconcurrently by Assessing Officers of different classes, then the higher authority can direct the lower authority in rank amongst them toexercise the powers and functions. ………. ………. authority can direct the lower authority in rank amongst them toexercise the powers and functions. ………. ………. 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124states that theAssessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of anydirection or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) toSection 120of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place wherethe person carries on business or profession or the area in which he isresiding. Sub- section (3) clearly states that no person can call inquestion jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer in case of non-complianceand/or after the period stipulated in clauses (a) and (b), which asobserved in S.S. Ahluwalia (supra) would negate and reject argumentspredicated on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Where an assesseequestions jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer within the time limit andin terms of sub-section (3), and the Assessing Officer is not satisfiedwith the correctness of the claim, he is required to refer the matter fordetermination under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made.Reference of matter under sub-section (2) would not be required whenAssessing Officer accepts the claim of the assessee and transfers thecase to another Assessing Officer in view the objection by the assessee.(In terms of sub-section (3) to Section 124of the Act, the petitioner hadlost his right to question jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer, WardNo. 1(1), Noida. 20. Sub-section (5) to Section 124, though limited in scope, would alsobe applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as theIncome-Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Noida had the power to assess incomeaccruing 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 oflocation of the bank account and/or petitioner's place of work. Section124(5)of the Act saves assessment made by an assessing officerprovided that the assessment does not bring to tax anything other thanincome accruing, arising or received in that area over which theassessing officer exercises jurisdiction. However, notwithstandingSection 124(5), the Act does not postulate multiple assessments bydifferent assessing officers, or assessment of part or portion of anincome [see Kanjimal & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, NewDelhi, (1982) 138 ITR 391 (Delhi)]. Thus, it is necessary that theAssessing Officers having concurrent jurisdiction ensure that only oneof them proceeds and adjudicate. This is the purport and objectivebehind sub-section (2) to Section 124of the Act.” 22.The aforesaid judgement of Delhi High Court only supports theview taken by us herein above. 23.No other point has been argued before us by the learned counsel forthe petitioner. 24.For all the reasons aforestated, we do not find any merit in this writpetition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 14.7.2022 sfa/