Praveen Bidhuri vs ITO: Jurisdictional Defect in Assessment Order by CIT(A) Post Retirement

Praveen Bidhuri vs ITO: Jurisdictional Defect in Assessment Order by CIT(A) Post Retirement

Case Number: ITA 6614/DEL/2019

Appellant: ITO, Ward-2(4), Noida

Respondent: Praveen Bidhuri, New Delhi

Assessment Year: 2009-10

Case Filed On: 2019-08-08

Order Type: Final Tribunal Order

Date of Order: 2020-12-16

Pronounced On: 2020-12-16

Introduction

The case of Praveen Bidhuri vs ITO, Ward-2(4), Noida, is a significant example of how jurisdictional issues can impact the validity of an order passed by a tax authority. The case was brought before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, to address the validity of an assessment order passed by the CIT(A), who was compulsorily retired before the order was issued.

Background

In this case, the appellant, the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2(4), Noida, filed an appeal against the respondent, Praveen Bidhuri, challenging the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Noida, for the assessment year 2009-10. The primary issue in this appeal was the jurisdictional authority of the CIT(A) to pass the order after his compulsory retirement.

Facts of the Case

The case revolves around the assessment order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Noida, Shri S.K. Srivastava, who was compulsorily retired by the Government of India with effect from June 11, 2019. Despite his retirement, it was alleged that the CIT(A) passed several orders, including the one in question, after his retirement, rendering the orders legally invalid due to a lack of jurisdiction.

During the proceedings, it was brought to light that the CIT(A) had allegedly uploaded several orders onto the ITBA system between June 11 and June 13, 2019, after his retirement. It was also discovered that many of these orders were purportedly passed in December 2018 but were only uploaded months later, raising questions about the legitimacy of the dates and the orders themselves.

Legal Issues

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the orders passed by CIT(A) post-retirement were valid or whether they were null and void due to the jurisdictional defect. The ITAT had to determine if the CIT(A) had the authority to pass these orders after his compulsory retirement and whether the orders were legally binding.

Arguments Presented

The Revenue, represented by the ITO, argued that the orders passed by the CIT(A) were invalid due to the jurisdictional defect. They contended that once the CIT(A) was compulsorily retired, he ceased to hold the office and, therefore, had no authority to pass any orders. The Revenue cited several Supreme Court judgments to support their claim that any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be enforced.

On the other hand, the respondent, Praveen Bidhuri, represented by himself, argued that the order in question should be considered valid until proven otherwise. He asserted that the CIT(A) had the authority to pass the order and that the allegations of post-retirement actions were unsubstantiated.

ITAT’s Observations

The ITAT examined the facts of the case, including the vigilance reports and the timeline of events. It was noted that the vigilance inspection conducted by the Income Tax Department revealed significant irregularities in the conduct of the CIT(A)-1, Noida. The inspection found that the CIT(A) had passed several orders beyond his jurisdiction, and many of these orders were uploaded to the system after his retirement, raising serious concerns about their validity.

The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. Workman, where it was held that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the very authority of the court or tribunal to pass any order, and such a defect cannot be cured even by the consent of the parties. The ITAT emphasized that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and any action taken without jurisdiction is null and void.

Final Judgment

In its final judgment, the ITAT ruled that the assessment order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Noida, was null and void due to the jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal concluded that since the CIT(A) was compulsorily retired on June 11, 2019, he had no authority to pass any orders thereafter, and any orders issued post-retirement were non-est and unenforceable.

The ITAT set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Noida, and directed that the matter be remanded back to the jurisdictional CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal ordered that the case be re-examined by a competent authority with the appropriate jurisdiction, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are upheld.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of jurisdiction in legal proceedings and the consequences of actions taken without proper authority. The ITAT’s decision highlights the principle that any order passed by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be enforced. It also serves as a reminder that legal procedures must be strictly adhered to, and any deviation can render the entire process void.

The case of Praveen Bidhuri vs ITO, Ward-2(4), Noida, serves as a critical example for tax authorities and legal practitioners, emphasizing the need for vigilance and adherence to jurisdictional boundaries in the administration of justice.

Praveen Bidhuri vs ITO: Jurisdictional Defect in Assessment Order by CIT(A) Post Retirement