The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the validity of the assessment on the grounds that objection to non-jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) of the Income tax Act was barred due to the assessee’s delay.
The bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal has observed that the appellant/assessee was served with notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act on 8-8-2013, which was served upon him on 21-8-2013 and he did not raise objection qua jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer till his appeal was decided by the CIT (Appeals) on 14-7- 2016. The assessee also did not raise any objection regarding jurisdiction upon completion of his assessment. The plea with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the ITO was barred by virtue of Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
The appellant, M/s Sona Agency, engaged in trading electrical goods in Raipur, filed an income tax return for AY 2012–13 declaring Rs. 2,96,390 as total income. Based on the PAN database, his residential address was in Samta Colony, under the jurisdiction of ITO Ward-1(1), Raipur. Accordingly, a notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 8 August 2013 and duly served.
Later, due to jurisdictional reallocation on 15 November 2014, Samta Colony came under ITO Ward-2(1), Raipur, which subsequently completed the assessment under Section 143(3) on 18 March 2015, determining total income at ₹28,38,520, including additions for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and undisclosed turnover.
On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) but partly upheld the addition of turnover. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the assessment was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. However, the ITAT upheld the assessment, holding that the notice issued based on the PAN address was valid and the assessee had not raised any timely objection as required under Section 124(3)(a). The ITAT relied on the Supreme Court ruling in PCIT v. I-Ven Interactive Ltd., confirming the validity of the assessment.
The court held that by the notification dated 15-11-2014, the territorial reallocation of wards at Raipur was undertaken and thus by operation of law, validly, the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur has been conferred with the jurisdiction after reallocation of wards. Therefore, the ITAT is absolutely justified in not entertaining the question with regard to jurisdiction of the AO.
Case Details
Case Title: Harish Kumar Chhabada Versus PCIT
Case No.: TAXC No. 138 of 2023
Date: 08/10/2025
Counsel For Appellant: Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Ajay Kumrani, Advocate
Read More: Advocates Move Supreme Court Against Exorbitant Nomination Fee in Bar Council Elections
