Valco Industries Ltd., Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 112/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77034 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Question of law; Assessment record; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 153A; 131; 246; 148; 37; 132; 144; 2; 11; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.112 TO 115/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., VS. THE A.C.I.T., SR 37, SECTOR 26, MADHYA MARG, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAACV5195J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINS T THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)(CENTRAL), GURGAON DATED 08.11.2012 AGAINS T THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S.144 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN THE LAW AND ON FACTS I N SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT AS PER SEARCH SCHEME U/S 153 A OF THE ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT ALL THE BUSINESS IDENTITIES OF THE COMPANY WERE SUBJECTED TO SURVEY U/S 133 A OF THE ACT. 2. THAT DESPITE DIRECTIONS BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WH ILE RESTORING THE APPEALS FOR FRESH DECISION, THE LD. CIT(A) AVOIDED TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE AO BY VIRTUE OF SEC 127 OF T HE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT CIT(A) IS NOT EMPOWERED U/S 246A OF THE ACT TO ADJUDICATE ON THE MATTER AND ALSO AVOIDED TO GIVE ANY FINDINGS ON INA CTION OF THE LD. AO AS 2 PER SEC 124 OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE LD. AO HAD SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT TO THE LD. CIT(A), BUT COPY THEREOF IS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSES. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED COMMON ORDER IN BUNC H OF APPEALS ARISING FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS,, THE COPY OF ORIGINAL ORDER IS ATTACHED WITH ONE APPEAL AND WITH REST OF APPEALS A TTESTED COPIES OF ORDER IS ATTACHED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER OR ADD TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND D ISPOSED OFF. 6. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF T HE LD. AO AND THE SURVEY OR THE SEARCH RECORD OF THE CASE MAY KINDLY BE SUMMONED FOR BETTER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THE APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE PAPER BOOK DURING TH E HEARING IN THE MATTER. 8. IT IS PRAYED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING BEYOND JUR ISDICTION OF THE LD. AO, MAY KINDLY BE ANNULLED AND QUASHED ALONG WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH & SE IZURE OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON 03.09.2004 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT REQUISITIONING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOM E. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY RETURN OF INCOME OR FILE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT TO OB JECT TO THE JURISDICTION INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING COOPERATED DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER PAS SED UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT MAY BE BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT NIL INCOME WAS DETERMINED IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAINST THE INVOKING OF JURISDI CTION BY THE ASSESSING 3 OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOLDING THAT THE JURISDIC TION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY INVOKED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. AR F OR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESET BUNCH OF APPEALS WAS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I N CROSS OBJECTION NO. 30 ALONGWITH CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE DIRECTO RS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN C.O. NO. 27 TO 29 /CHD/2008. 6. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. 7. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER RAISED IN VIEW OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT AND INVOKI NG OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ARO SE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN C.O. NOS. 27 & 30/CHD/2008 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER OF EVEN DATE HAS HELD AS UNDER : 96. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT PURSUA NT TO SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION CARRIED OUT ON 03.09.2004, THE AS SESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT ON 06.1 0.2005 REQUISITIONING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF I NCOME WITHIN ONE MONTH OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TH AT IT CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH. VARIOUS REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CHALLENGING THE J URISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO INVOKING OF PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND NO REPLY ON MERITS WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SEVERAL QUESTIONNAIRES ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POI NTED OUT THAT NO SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AS HE WA S NOT PRESENT AT THE SEARCHED PREMISES ON THE DATE OF SEA RCH. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, PROCE EDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT A ND NOT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO SHOW THE PANCHNAMA WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE NAME OF SHRI AJA Y KUMAR GUPTA IS MENTIONED AS THE PERSON SEARCHED ON 3/4.9.2004. 4 97. OUR ATTENTION WAS FURTHER DRAWN TO THE COMMUNIC ATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED AT PAGE 459 OF THE PAPER B OOK WHICH, AS PER THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS OBJECTION TO INVOKING OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO STATEMENT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA WAS RECORDED DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH AND ONLY STATEMENT OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA WAS RECORDED AND WAS USED FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE THREE PERSONS AND HENCE THE CROSS OBJECTION. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA WAS THE BROTHER OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND BOTH O F THEM WERE THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY NOW KNOWN AS M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. 98. ANOTHER CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A ORIGINATED FROM SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AND SECTION 153A PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT ON LY ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS BASED ON MATERIAL WITH VALID REPO RTS SUPPLIED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND UPON PROPER AND VALID INVEST IGATIONS. THE ASSESSEE QUESTIONED THE DETAILS OF REASONS AND OCCASIONS TO INITIATE THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE ACT BY THE SAID COMMUNICATION. 99. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IN REPLY POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AT PAGES 105 AND 106 OF THE PAPER B OOK HAS ENCLOSED THE COPY OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT UNDER WHICH THE CIT-I CHANDIGARH HAD TRANSF ERRED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA FROM RANGE- III, CHANDIGARH TO DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.2005. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE THAT THERE WAS VALID JURISDICTION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS HIS ORDERS UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 100. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DR FOR T HE REVENUE THAT THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IS NOT APPEALABLE AND THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 101. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STATED THAT FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ANOTHER GROUND AGAINST THE ISSU E OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AFTER A VALID SEARCH. THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE AC T BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN VALIDLY ISSUED AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF SEARCH & SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE THUS, QUESTIONED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER STATED THAT UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT, NO PERSON IS ENTITLED TO QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER A S VESTING OF JURISDICTION IN THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS AUTOMATIC UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 102. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED IN ITA NO. 663/CH D/2008 IN THE CASE OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., THE LD. A R FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH THE GROUNDS OF CRO SS OBJECTIONS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN T HE CASE OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS, BUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR 5 THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ONLY SURVEY WAS CARRI ED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FOR THE A SSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDE R RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT I.E. ANNEXURE-I IN WHICH IT IS MENT IONED THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAMES OF S/SHR I AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA AND VIJAY KUMAR GU PTA AND EVEN THE NAMES OF THE SAID PERSONS ARE MENTIONE D IN THE PANCHNAMA OF THE PREMISES SEARCHED BY THE INVESTIGA TION TEAM. HOWEVER, AT S.NO. 7 I.E. IN THE CASE OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT SURVEY U NDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 03.09.2004 AND NO MATERIAL WAS SEIZED/IMPOUNDED. THE SAID ANNEXURE-1 DOES NOT TALK OF ANY SEARCH UPON THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTE NTION WAS THEN DRAWN TO PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHI CH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED UPON M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. ON 03.09. 2004. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THEN REFERRED TO THE PA NCHNAMA PLACED AT PAGE 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WAS IN TH E NAME OF S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD, VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND THE PR EMISES SEARCHED WERE HOUSE NO. 3007, SECTOR 19D, CHANDIGAR H. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS ON 31.10. 2003, THE NAME OF THE COMPANY M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. WAS CHANGED TO M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AND THE NECESSARY INCO RPORATION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIE S WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 114 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR F OR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THE APPLICATIO N FILED FOR ALLOTMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION ACCOUNT NUMBER UNDER SEC TION 203A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD INFORMED THE ASSE SSING OFFICER(TDS) REGARDING THE CHANGE IN THE NAME OF TH E COMPANY, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 115 AND 1 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE SAID COMMUNICATION, THE ADDRESS HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS SCO NO. 37, SECTOR 26, MANI MAJRA , CHANDIGARH. IT WAS FAIRLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. A R FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ORIGINALLY THE ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY WAS AT HOUSE NO. 3007, SECTOR 19D, CHANDIGARH BUT THE SAME WAS CHANGED TO SECTOR 26, MANI MAJRA, CHANDIGARH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO STANDS CHANGED. ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE JUR ISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I BUT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN ADDRESS, THE JURISDICTION WAS UNDER COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX-II. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRANSFER ORDERS PASSED ON 30.05.2005 BY COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION A S THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX-II CHANDIGARH. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ON 19.05.2005, NOTICE UND ER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), CHANDIGARH B UT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WITH CIRCLE 4(1) W HICH IN- TURN IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX-II CHANDIGARH AND HENCE, THE TRANSFER ORDERS IN THE CASE OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. COULD NOT BE PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT VARIOUS COMMUNICATION S WERE MADE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISING OBJECTIONS VI S--VIS THE 6 JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTERS PLACED AT PAGES 371, 376, 440 AND 441 AND ALSO OBJECTIONS WER E FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,COPY OF WHI CH IS PLACED AT PAGE 104 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR F OR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AT PAGES 4 & 5 HAS DEALT WITH ALL THE SAID ISSUES. HOWEVER, IT WAS STRESSED BY HIM THAT THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ON THE DATE OF SEARCH HAD THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE COMPANY W AS NOT PRESENT ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS AND WHEN OUR CASES HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO CIT-II. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX-I CHANDIGARH WRONGLY ISSUED THE NOTICE TRANSFERRING T HE JURISDICTION. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120 AND 127 OF THE ACT AND IT WAS POINTED OUT BY TH E LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT TALK OF THE CAUSE OF TRANSFER OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ORDER BEING ISSUED BY NON-JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY WAS INVALID AND FURTHER THE ACTION ON THE COMPANY WAS U NDER SURVEY AND ALSO AS THE COMPANY WAS NOT PRESENT AT T HE ADDRESS ON WHICH SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED AND ALSO BECAUSE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WERE INVALID. 103. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IN REPLY POINTED OU T THAT PERUSAL OF PAGE 110 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD REFLECT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.01.2005 WAS ISSU ED BY CIRCLE 3(1), CHANDIGARH RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4 AT THE HOME ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. HOUSE NO. 3007, SECTOR 9D, CHANDIGARH. THE SAID ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY AND TH E WARRANT ISSUED AGAINST THE COMPANY WAS VALID AS SEARCH ON H IS EARLIER ADDRESS WAS DIRECTED TO BE CARRIED ON I.E. THE ADDR ESS WHERE IN PAST THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY WAS SITUATED AND THE RE WAS ASSUMPTION THAT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE TRANSACTI ONS WOULD BE AVAILABLE AT THE SAID ADDRESS. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SALE DEED DATED 02.04.2003 WAS ALSO REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD . AT HOUSE NO. 3007, SECTOR 19D, CHANDIGARH. HE FURTHER STRESSED THAT THE CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY DOES NOT DISSOLVE THE COMPANY AND DOES NOT EXTINCT THE COMPANY AS THE PAN NUMBER OF THE COMPANY REMAINS THE SAME AND THE WARRANT ISSUED IN THE OLD NAME OF THE COMPANY WAS THUS, VALID. HE REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(3) OF THE COMPANIES ACT AND POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID SECTION RECOGNIZES THE CHANGE IN NAME OF THE COMPAN Y BUT DOES NOT DISSOLVE THE COMPANY. IN RESPECT OF THE JURISDICTI ON OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 153A REA D WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINT ED OUT THAT THE CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTE R OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 104. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WE SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ISSU E RAISED AGAINST THE INVOKING OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THE CASES OF S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA AND VI JAY KUMAR GUPTA. SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION AT THE RESIDENTIA L PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. HOUSE NO. 3007, SECTOR 19D, CHAND IGARH WERE CARRIED OUT ON 03.09.2004. THE COPY OF THE PANCHNA MA IS PLACED 7 AT PAGES 59 AND 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT THE WARRANT IS ISSUED IN THE CASE OF S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES, VIJAY KUMAR GUP TA. THE WARRANT WAS ISSUED TO SEARCH THE HOUSE NO. 3007, SE CTOR 19D, CHANDIGARH WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY THE RESIDENTIAL ADDR ESS OF ALL THE THREE BROTHERS I.E. ASSESSEES BEFORE US. FURTHER, SEARCH OF THE LOCKER NO. 10, STATE BANK OF INDIA, INDUSTRIAL AREA , PHASE-I CHANDIGARH BELONGING TO SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA WA S CARRIED OUT ON 4.9.2004 AND 13.09.2004 AND THE COPIES OF PA NCHNAMA ARE PLACED AT PAGES 61 AND 62 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, LOCKER NO.87, STATE BANK OF INDIA, INDUS TRIAL AREA, PHASE-I CHANDIGARH BELONGING TO SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GU PTA, SMT. SUMAN GUPTA AND SMT. ROSHAN DEVI WAS ALSO SEARCHED ON 04.09.2004 AND 05.10.2004 AND THE COPIES OF THE PAN CHNAMA ARE PLACED AT PAGES 67 AND 68 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ANOTHE R LOCKER NO. 55, STATE BANK OF INDIA, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-I C HANDIGARH BELONGING TO S/SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND VIJAY KUMR GUPTA WAS SEARCHED ON 04.09.2004 AND 13. 09.2004 AND COPIES OF THE PANCHNAMA ARE PLACED AT PAGES 73 AND 74 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LOCKER NO. 62 STATE BANK OF INDIA, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-I CHANDIGARH BELONGING TO SHRI AJAY KUM AR GUPTA AND SMT. RAJNI GUPTA WAS ALSO SEARCHED ON 13.09.2004, 1 9.09.2004 AND 05.10.2004 AND THE COPIES OF THE PANCHNAMA ARE PLAC ED AT PAGES 79-81 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ANOTHER LOCKER IN STATE B ANK OF INDIA BELONGING TO SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA WAS SEARCHED ON 04.09.2004 AND 13.09.2004 AND THE COPIES OF THE PAN CHNAMA ARE PLACED AT PAGES 86-87 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.2005 IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 127(1) READ WITH SUB-SECTIO N (3) OF SECTION 127 THE INCOME TAX ACT, TRANSFERRED THE CASES OF TH E ASSESSEE FROM RANGE III, CHANDIGARH TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH. THE SAID ORDER DATED 30.05.200 5 IS PLACED AT PAGES 92-93 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LIST AT SR.NO. 4 TALKS OF TRANSFER OF CASES OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. EARL IER KNOWN AS M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD., AT SR.NO. 5, OF SHRI ASHWAN I KUMAR GUPTA, AT SR.NO. 6, OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND AT SR.NO . 7, OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA. AFTER THE SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF VA RIOUS OTHER PERSONS AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2005, WHO IN-TURN WERE LINKED TO THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF THE PROPERT Y NUMBERING 18, THE JURISDICTION OF THE CASES WAS TRANSFERRED FROM RANGE-III, CHANDIGARH TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTR AL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH. 105. SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT AT SCO 37, SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH I.E. THE PREMISES OF M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. ON 03.09.2004 AND SEALS WERE PLACED UPON THE CPU FOUND IN THE PREMISES WHICH WERE THEN BROKEN ON 09. 09.2004 AND THE COPY OF THE PANCHNAMAS ARE PLACED AT PAGES 99 T O 101 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2005 TRANS FERRING THE JURISDICTION TO CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH AT PAGES 105 AND 106 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS COPY OF THE EARLIER DOCUMEN T REFERRED TO BY US FILED AT PAGES 92 AND 93 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE, AT PAGE 102 HAS PLACED THE SEARCH RESULTS AT THE NATIO NAL WEBSITE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER WHICH THE JURISDICT ION OF CIT, 8 CHANDIGARH-I IS STATED TO BE SECTOR 1 TO 25, INDUST RIAL AREA, PHASE-I, PHASE-II CHANDIGARH AND MANI MAJRA. 106. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA IS THAT THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED ON AT TH E RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE PERSON BUT THE SAID PERSON WAS NOT A VAILABLE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SEARCH INITIAT ED IN THE CASE WAS NOT VALID AND FURTHER THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S ECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS INCORRECT. THE SAID OBJECTION WAS RAISE D ONLY IN THE CASE OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND NOT IN THE CASE O F SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA. IT MAY BE PLACED ON RECORD THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUP TA WAS RECORDED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 03.09.2004 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSE SSEE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA WAS AVAILABLE AT THE PREMISES ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN ANY CASE, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE PERSON SEARCHED SHOULD BE PRES ENT IN THE SEARCHED PREMISES. 107. COMING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1), 13 2(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 132. (1) WHERE THE [DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR] OR TH E [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] [ OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ] [ OR JOINT DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIONER ] IN CONSEQUENCE OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION, HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT (A) ANY PERSON TO WHOM A SUMMONS UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 37 OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922 (11 OF 1922), OR UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 131 OF THIS ACT, OR A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 22 OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922, OR UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF S ECTION 142 OF THIS ACT WAS ISSUED TO PRODUCE, OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED, ANY BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS HAS OMITTED OR FAILED TO PRODUCE, OR CAUS E TO BE PRODUCED, SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY SUCH SUMMONS OR NOTICE, OR (B) ANY PERSON TO WHOM A SUMMONS OR NOTICE AS AFOR ESAID HAS BEEN OR MIGHT BE ISSUED WILL NOT, OR WOULD NOT, PRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED, ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH WILL BE USEFUL FOR , OR RELEVANT TO, ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922 (1 1 OF 1922), OR UNDER THIS ACT, OR (C) ANY PERSON IS IN POSSESSION OF ANY MONEY, BULL ION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING AND SUCH MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING REPRESENTS EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY INCOME OR PROPERTY [WHICH HAS NOT BEEN, OR WOULD NOT BE, DISCLOSED] FOR THE P URPOSES OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922 (11 OF 1922), OR THIS ACT (HER EINAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY), [THEN, (A) THE [DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR] OR THE [CH IEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER], AS THE CASE MAY BE, MAY AUTHORISE AN Y [ ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR ] 95 [JOINT DIRECTOR], [JOINT COMMISSIONER], [ASSISTANT DIRECTOR [OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR]], [ASSISTA NT COMMISSIONER 98 [OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER] OR INCOME-TAX OFFICER]. (B) SUCH [ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR ADDITIONAL COMMISS IONER OR] [JOINT DIRECTOR], OR [JOINT COMMISSIONER], AS THE CASE MAY BE, MAY AUTHO RISE ANY [ASSISTANT DIRECTOR [OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR]], [ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [OR DEPU TY COMMISSIONER]OR INCOME-TAX OFFICER], 9 (THE OFFICER SO AUTHORISED IN ALL CASES BEING HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AUTHORISED OFFICER) TO] (I) ENTER AND SEARCH ANY [BUILDING, PLACE, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT] WHERE HE HAS REASON TO SUSPECT THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE KE PT; (II) BREAK OPEN THE LOCK OF ANY DOOR, BOX, LOCKER, SAFE, ALMIRAH OR OTHER RECEPTACLE FOR EXERCISING THE POWERS CONFERRED BY CLAUSE (I) WHERE THE KEYS THEREOF ARE NOT AVAILABLE; [(IIA) SEARCH ANY PERSON WHO HAS GOT OUT OF, OR IS ABOUT TO GET INTO, OR IS IN, THE BUILDING, PLACE, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT, IF THE AUTHORIS ED OFFICER HAS REASON TO SUSPECT THAT SUCH PERSON HAS SECRETED ABOUT HIS PERSON ANY SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING;] [(IIB) REQUIRE ANY PERSON WHO IS FOUND TO BE IN POS SESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE FORM O F ELECTRONIC RECORD AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (T) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 2 OF THE I NFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 (21 OF 2000), TO AFFORD THE AUTHORISED OFFICER THE NECESSA RY FACILITY TO INSPECT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS;] (III) SEIZE ANY SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUM ENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING FOUND AS A RESULT O F SUCH SEARCH: [ PROVIDED THAT BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING, BEING STOCK-IN- TRADE OF THE BUSINESS, FOUND AS A RESULT OF SUCH SE ARCH SHALL NOT BE SEIZED BUT THE AUTHORISED OFFICER SHALL MAKE A NOTE OR INVENTORY O F SUCH STOCK-IN-TRADE OF THE BUSINESS;] (IV) PLACE MARKS OF IDENTIFICATION ON ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE EXTRACTS OR COPIES THEREFROM; (V) MAKE A NOTE OR AN INVENTORY OF ANY SUCH MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING : [ PROVIDED THAT WHERE ANY BUILDING, PLACE, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (I) IS WITHIN THE AREA OF JURISDICTION OF AN Y [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER], BUT SUCH [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMM ISSIONER] HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C), THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION, IT S HALL BE COMPETENT FOR HIM TO EXERCISE THE POWERS UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION IN ALL CASES WHER E HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY DELAY IN GETTING THE AUTHORISATION FROM THE [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH PERSON MAY BE PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE :] [ PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE OR PRACTICABLE TO TA KE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF ANY VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING AND REM OVE IT TO A SAFE PLACE DUE TO ITS VOLUME, WEIGHT OR OTHER PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OR DUE TO ITS BEING OF A DANGEROUS NATURE, THE AUTHORISED OFFICER MAY SERVE AN ORDER O N THE OWNER OR THE PERSON WHO IS IN IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OR CONTROL THEREOF THAT HE SHA LL NOT REMOVE, PART WITH OR OTHERWISE DEAL WITH IT, EXCEPT WITH THE PREVIOUS PERMISSION O F SUCH AUTHORISED OFFICER AND SUCH ACTION OF THE AUTHORISED OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE SEIZURE OF SUCH VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING UNDER CLAUSE (III):] [ PROVIDED ALSO THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE SECOND PROVISO SHALL APPLY IN CASE OF ANY VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING, BEING STOCK-IN-TRADE OF THE BUSINESS:] 10 [ PROVIDED ALSO THAT NO AUTHORISATION SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE ADDITI ONAL DIRECTOR OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR JOINT DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIONER ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 UNLESS HE HAS BEEN EMPOWERED B Y THE BOARD TO DO SO.] [(1A) WHERE ANY [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER ], IN CONSEQUENCE OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION, HAS REASON TO SUSPEC T THAT ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUA BLE ARTICLE OR THING IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN OFFICER HAS BEEN AUTHORISED BY THE [DIRECT OR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR] OR ANY OTHER [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] OR [ADDI TIONAL DIRECTOR OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER] [OR JOINT DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIO NER] TO TAKE ACTION UNDER CLAUSES (I) TO (V) OF SUB-SECTION (1) ARE OR IS KEPT IN ANY BUILDING, PLACE, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT NOT MENTIONED IN THE AUTHORISATION UNDER S UB-SECTION (1), SUCH [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION AUTHORISE THE SAID OFFICER TO TAKE ACTION UNDER ANY OF THE CLAUSES AFORESAID IN RESPECT OF SUCH BUILDING, PLACE, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT.] 108. READING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AUTHORITIES, IN CONSEQUEN CE OF THE INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION, WHERE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS OR WOULD VIOLATE THE CONDITIONS LAID DOW N IN CLAUSES (A) TO (C) UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT, THEN THE OF FICER SO AUTHORIZED IN ALL CASES WOULD BE ENTITLED TO ENTER AND SEARCH ANY BUILDING, PLACE, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT WHERE HE HAS REASON TO SUSPECT THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS , MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THI NG ARE KEPT. HE IS ALSO AUTHORIZED TO BREAK-OPEN THE LOCK OF ANY DOOR, BOX, LOCKER, SAFE, ALMIRAH ETC. FOR EXERCISING THE POWERS AS CON FERRED BY CLAUSE (I) WHERE KEYS THEREOF WERE NOT AVAILABLE. ANOTHER POWER ENSHRINED ON THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER IS TO SEARCH AN Y PERSON WHO HAS GOT OUT OR IS ABOUT TO GET INTO ANY OR IS IN AN Y BUILDING, PLACE, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT, WHERE THE AUTHORIZED O FFICER HAS REASON TO SUSPECT THAT SUCH PERSON HAS SECRETED UPON HIS P ERSON ANY SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING, ETC. 109. ANOTHER AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE AUTHORIZED OFFI CER IS WITH REGARD TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS M AINTAINED IN THE FORM OF ELECTRONIC RECORD AND HE IS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE ACT TO INSPECT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AS PER CLAUSE (IIB) TO SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT. AN AUTHORIZED OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO SEIZE ANY SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING FOUND AS A RESULT OF SUCH SEARCH. WHERE SUCH BULLION, JE WELLERY, ARTICLE OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING IS THE STOCK-IN- TRADE OF THE BUSINESS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH, THEN SUCH ART ICLES WOULD NOT BE SEIZED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BUT HE SHALL M AKE A NOTE OF THE INVENTORY OF SUCH STOCK-IN-TRADE OF THE BUSINESS. HE IS ALSO AUTHORIZED TO MAKE A NOTE OR ANY INVENTORY OF ANY M ONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE FOUND AND ALSO PLACE MARKS OF IDENTIFICATION ON ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOC UMENTS. 110. THE PROVISO UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT PR OVIDES THAT WHERE ANY BUILDING, PLACE, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR AIRCR AFT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (I) IS WITHIN THE AREA OF JURISDICTION OF AN Y CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER BUT SUCH CHIEF COMMISS IONER OR COMMISSIONER HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER SUCH PERSON R EFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A), (B) OR (C), THEN NOT-WITHSTANDING ANYTH ING CONTAINED IN 11 SECTION 120, THEN SUCH CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMIS SIONER HAVING NO JURISDICTION SHALL BE COMPETENT TO EXERCI SE THE POWERS UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION IN ALL CASES, WHERE HE HAS R EASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY DELAY IN GETTING THE AUTHORIZATION FROM TH E CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER HAVING JURISDICTION OV ER SUCH PERSON MAY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E. 111. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION AGAINST A NY PERSON CAN BE CARRIED OUT BY ANY AUTHORIZED OFFICER WHERE HE H AS INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION AND HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TH E ASSESSEE WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS IN CLAUSE (A), (B) O R (C) OF SECTION 132(1), THEN SUCH PERSON IS AUTHORIZED BY THE AUTHO RITIES TO ENTER AND SEARCH ANY BUILDING, PLACE, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT. THE POWER TO SEARCH HAS BEEN GIVEN NOT ONLY TO SEARCH A NY BUILDING OR PLACE BUT ALSO TO SEARCH ANY VESSEL, VEHICLE OR AIR CRAFT WHERE THERE IS A REASON TO SUSPECT THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE KEPT BY SEARCHED PERSON. FURTHER POWER IS ALSO GIV EN TO SEARCH ANY PERSON WHO IS GETTING OUT OF OR ABOUT TO GET IN OR IS IN ANY BUILDING, PLACE, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT. THUS , THE SAID POWER TO SEARCH BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER IS WIDE AND IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE KNOWN ADDRESS OF A PERSON TO BE SEARCHED. THE SEARCH IS CARRIED OUT IN ORDER TO DISCOVER SUCH BOOKS OF ACCO UNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUA BLE ARTICLES KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH A PLACE WHERE THE SAME CAN BE FOUND. SUCH EXERCISE OF POWER IS THUS, ON BOTH THE KNOWN O R UN-KNOWN ADDRESSES OF A PARTICULAR PERSON IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT SEARCH TO DISCOVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENTS OR OTHER A RTICLES OR THINGS INCLUDING MONEY, JEWELLERY ETC. BELONGING TO SUCH PERSON/S. 112. FURTHER, THE PROVISO UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF T HE ACT VERY CLEARLY LAYS DOWN THAT SUCH EXERCISE OF THE POWER T O SEARCH CAN BE CARRIED OUT BY ANY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSION ER WHETHER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OR NOT BUT WITH IN HIS AREA OF JURISDICTION, WHERE SUCH BUILDING, PLACE, VESSEL, V EHICLE OR AIRCRAFT IS EXISTING. THE SAID POWER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO AUTH ORIZE SEARCH TO ANY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER NOT-WITHSTAN DING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 120 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 113. NOW COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF SHRI AJ AY KUMAR GUPTA, THE WARRANT OF SEARCH WAS IN THE NAME OF SHR I AJAY KUMAR GUPTA ALONGWITH SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, M/S VISHN U ASSOCIATES LTD. AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 59 AND 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE S EARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON 3 & 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2004 AT HOUSE NO. 3007, SECTOR 19D, CHANDIGARH. MERELY BECAUSE ONE OF THE PERSONS SEARCHED WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE GIVEN TIME, DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE SEARCH AS THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT ARE NOT PERSON SPECIFIC BUT PLACE SPECIFIC. THE WARRANT IN THE PR ESENT CASE WAS ISSUED TO SEARCH HOUSE NO. 3007, SECTOR 9D, CHANDIG ARH WHICH IN SOME-WAY WAS CONNECTED TO SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, SH RI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES AND SHRI VIJAY K UMAR GUPTA. ADMITTEDLY THE THREE PERSONS SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA ARE BROTHERS AND W ERE DIRECTORS OF M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. AND WERE RE SIDING AT THE SAID ADDRESS. EVEN THE SAID COMPANY, INITIALLY HAD ITS REGISTERED 12 OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 3007, SECTOR 19D, CHANDIGARH. ONCE THE SEARCH IS IN RESPECT OF THE PREMISES AND NOT PERSON SPECIFIC, THEN IN SUCH CASES IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT BECAUSE ONE OF THE PERSON WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE GIVEN TIME OF SEARCH, CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE NOT BEEN SEARCHED AS THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF PRESENC E. IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT INFORMATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AND THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE DE PARTMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 23.10.2007 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 31 TO 54 OF THE PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A-1 WHEREIN VARIOUS PERSONS HAD APPLIED FOR SIMILAR INFORMATION. THE DEPARTMENT IN REPLY, HAD SUBMITTED THAT SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA AS MENTIONED IN S.NO. 1 ON 03.09.2004 A ND THE COPY OF PANCHNAMA HAS ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE. FURTHER, IT IS MENTIONED IN THE SAID ANNEXURE-1 THAT SEARCH WARRANT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR VARIOUS DATES TO SEARCH THE DIFFERENT LOCKERS IN THE NAME OF DIFFERENT PERSONS AT S.NO. 2 TO 6 WERE ISSUED AND COPY OF THE PANCHNAMA HAS ALREADY B EEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID ANNEXURE, IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED UP ON M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AT SCO NO. 37, SECTOR 16, CHANDIGAR H. SO, IN THE SAID COMMUNICATION, THERE ARE TWO SETS OF INFORMATI ON, ONE IN RESPECT OF THE SEARCH ON DIFFERENT PERSONS INCLUDIN G SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, M/S VISHNU A SSOCIATES AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND DIFFERENT LOCKERS IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAME AND ALSO SURVEY ON THE OFFICE PREMISES OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. 114. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MER IT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA. WE HOLD THAT THE SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICERS PURSUAN T TO WARRANT ISSUED IN THE NAMES OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES AND SHRI VIJAY K UMAR GUPTA AT HOUSE NO. 3007, SECTOR 19D, CHANDIGARH WAS VALID LY CONDUCTED AND PANCHNAMA TO THE EFFECT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE, COPY OF WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. PURSUANT TO THE SAID SEARCH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT ON DIFFERENT PERSONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 153A O F THE ACT IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE NOTICE REQUISITIONING THE DIFFE RENT ASSESSEES TO FURNISH THEIR INDIVIDUAL RETURNS OF INCOME AS SEARC H HAD BEEN CARRIED ON AT THEIR KNOWN ADDRESS ON FOUR DIFFERENT PERSONS AS MENTIONED IN THE PANCHNAMA DATED 3/4.09.2004 I.E. S /SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, M/S VISHNU ASSOCI ATES AND VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA WAS NOT PRESENT AT TH E GIVEN ADDRESS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THEN THE PROCEEDINGS IN HIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153A OF TH E ACT. THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AND WE UPHOLD THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IN THE HAND S OF S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, AND SHRI VIJAY KU MAR GUPTA. 115. THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REG ARDING INVOKING OF JURISDICTION BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE. 13 116. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT TH E SAID JURISDICTION WAS VALIDLY TRANSFERRED FROM RANGE III , CHANDIGARH TO THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH BY AN ORDER PA SSED UNDER SECTION 127(1) READ WITH SECTION 127(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.05.2005, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 105 AND 106. THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED ONLY TWO OBJECTIONS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 (4) OF THE ACT AND 127 OF THE ACT. FOR UNDERSTANDING THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE OF JURISDICTION, LET US GO THROUGH THE RELEVANT PORTIO N OF THE PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE : 120. (1) INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES SHALL EXERCISE ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASSIGNED TO SUCH AUTHORITIES BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS AS THE BOARD MAY ISSUE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR A NY OF THOSE AUTHORITIES. (2) THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BOARD UNDER SUB-SECTION(1 ) MAY AUTHORIZE ANY OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCI SE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THE OTHER INCOME-TAX AUT HORITIES 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 IT MAY HAVE REGA RD TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, NAMELY:- (A) TERRITORIAL AREA; (B) PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS; (C) INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME; AND (D) CASES OR CLASSES IF CASES, (4) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT IONS(1) AND (2), THE BOARD MAY, BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDER, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS, REST RICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED THEREIN,- (A) AUTHORIZE ANY DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR TO PERFORM SUCH FUNCTIONS OF ANY OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY AS MAY BE ASSIGNED TO HIM BY T HE BOARD; (B) EMPOWER THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIO NER OR COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING THAT THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASSIGNED TO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT O F ANY SPECIFIED AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES, SHALL BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED BY A [JOINT] COMMISSIONER [OR A [JOINT] D IRECTOR], AND, WHERE ANY ORDER IS MADE UNDER THIS CLAUSE, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISIO N OF THIS ACT, OR IN ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFE RENCES TO SUCH [JOINT ] COMMISSIONER [OR [JOINT]DIRECTOR] BY WHOM THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS A RE TO BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED UNDER SUCH ORDER, AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF THE [JOINT] COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT APPLY. (5) THE DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SE CTIONS(1) AND (2) MAY WHEREVER CONSIDERED NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPER MANAGEMENT OF THE WORK, REQUIRE TWO OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER OR NOT OF THE SAME CLAS S) TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM, CONCURRENTLY, THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF ANY AREA OR PERS ONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS 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 ASSESSI NG OFFICERS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES, ANY AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK AMONGST THEM SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AMONGST THEM MAY DIRECT, AND, FURTHER, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH HIGHER AUTHORITY AND ANY PROVISI ON OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF ANY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL NOT APPLY. (6) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY DIREC TION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION, OR IN SECTION 124, THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN T HE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, DIRECT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT OR THING UNDER THIS ACT OR ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER BY ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF PERS ONS, THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY EXERCISING 14 AND PERFORMING THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE SAID PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS SHALL BE SUCH AUTHORITY AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTIFI CATION.] [ 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 HAS BEEN VEST ED WITH JURISDICTION OVER ANY AREA, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, HE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION- (A) IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON A BUSINES S OR PROFESSION, IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIED ON HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE WI THIN THE AREA, OR WHERE HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, I F THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE WITHIN THE AREA, AND (B) IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE AREA. (2) WHERE A QUESTION ARISES UNDER THIS SECTION AS T O WHETHER AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON, THE QUESTION SHA LL BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER, OR WHER E THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT DIRECTOR GENER ALS OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF CO MMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED OR, IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, BY THE BOARD OR BY SUCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY N OTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY. (3) NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER- (A) WHERE HE HAS MADE A RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 139, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A N OTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR AFTER THE COM PLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; (B) WHERE HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EXP IRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 142 OR UNDER SECTIO N 148 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 144 TO SH OW CAUSE WHEY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST6 OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. (4)--------------------- (5)--------------------- 127. (1) THE DIRECTOR GENERA OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER, WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, AND AFTER RECORDING HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO, TRANS FER ANY CASE FROM ONE OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS SUBORDINATE TO HIM (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOU T CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WI TH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) ALSO SUBORDINATE TO HIM. (2) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICE RS FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TO BE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS TO WHOM THE CASE IS TO BE TRANSFERRED ARE NOT SUBORDINATE TO THE SAME DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF C OMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER,- (A)------------------------ (B)------------------------ (3) NOTHING IN SUB-SECTION(1) OR SUB-SECTION(2) SHA LL BE DEEMED TO REQUIRE ANY SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO BE GIVEN WHERE THE TRANSFER IS FROM ANY ASSESSIN G OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS(WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) TO ANY OTHER AS SESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) A ND THE OFFICES OF ALL SUCH OFFICERS ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, LOCALITY OR PLACE. (4) THE TRANSFER OF A CASE UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OR SUB-SECTION(2) MAY BE MADE AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND SHALL NOT RENDER NECESSARY THE RE-ISSUE OF ANY NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS FROM WHOM T HE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. 15 117. UNDER SECTION 124 OF THE ACT, THE JURISDICTION OF A SSESSING OFFICERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WHERE IT IS LAID DOWN T HAT BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTIONS OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1 ) OR SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION OVER ANY AREA OR WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, THEN HE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION WITHIN THE AREA AND WHERE HE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS IN ONE OR MORE PLACES, THEN IF THE PRI NCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS SITUATED WITHIN THE SAID AREA AND IN RE SPECT OF ANY PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE AREA. THE QUESTION OF T HE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON BY ANY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER O R THE COMMISSIONER AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT DIRECTOR GENER ALS OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, THEN BY THE CONCERN ED DIRECTOR GENERAL, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AND IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THEN BY THE BOARD OR ANY PERSON NOMIN ATED BY BOARD. UNDER SUB-SECTION (3), TO SECTION 124 IT IS LAID DOWN THAT ANY ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CALL QUESTION ON THE JU RISDICTION OF ANY ASSESSING OFFICER, WHERE HE HAS MADE THE RETURN OF INCOME OR WAS SERVED WITH ANY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OR 115W E(2) OR SECTION 143(2) OR AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, W HICHEVER IS EARLIER AND IN CASE HE HAS NOT MADE ANY RETURN OF I NCOME, THEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TIME ALLOWED UNDER THE RESPECTI VE SECTIONS FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME OR THE REQUISITE INFORM ATION. SUB SECTION (4) TO SECTION 124 PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN A SSESSEE CALLS IN QUESTION, THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER THEN IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECT NESS OF THE CLAIM, SHALL REFER THE MATTER FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS OB JECTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE LA ID DOWN UNDER SECTION 124(4) OF THE ACT. PERHAPS THE ASSESSEE IS REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3) UNDER WHICH THE ASSESS EE WAS REQUIRED TO LODGE THE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY REGARDING THE JURIS DICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SO CALLED OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED AT PAGE 459 OF THE PAPER BOOK READS AS UNDER : NOVEMBER 14,2005 WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SCO. 48-49, TOP FLOOR SECTOR 1 7-A CHANDIGARH. SUBJECT : NOTICES U/S 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1 961-RE KIND ATT. HON'BLE SHREE V.K.CHOPRA. THE ASSTT. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA. IANDIG ARH. HONBLE SIR. 16 1. THIS IS WITH REGARD TO YOUR LETTERS CONTAINING S UBJECT NOTICES DATED 06.10.2005, DELIVERED BY HAND ON 18.10.2005, WE OFFER TO SUBMIT RESPECTFULLY AS UNDER, IT IS IN VIW OF ALL THE RELEVANT & APPLICABLE VARIO US PROVISIONS OF LAW, ACT & LAW RELATING TO FINANCE, REVENUE, COMMERCE, V ARIOUS TAXATIONS, UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS / CHAPTERS RULES ETC., CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE ACT., LAW OF LIMITATIONS., RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT., RIGHTS & REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE VARIOUS PROVI SIONS OF LAW AND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW, GUIDELINES, NOTIFICATION'S , INSTRUCTIONS, PUBLIC NOTICES, CIRCULARS, PRACTICE, PROCEDURE, PRINCIPALS... IT IS IN VIEW OF THESE APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS OF LA W, THAT THE SUBJECT NOTICES M YOUR LETTERS ARE SILENT AND NON-SPEAKING, AS TO SAY THAT; WHY THESE NOTICES ARE ISSUED TO US WHAT .ARE THE DETAILS OF REASON'S AND THE OCCASION, COSEQUENCIES TO INITIATE SUCH NOTICES BY THIS PUBLI C OFFICE, THAT UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY OF LAW & PROCEDURE THE NOTICES CAME TO ARISE CONTAINING SUCH INSTRUCTIONS TO FILE AGAIN THE RETURN'S FOR MANY PREVIOUS YEARS, IT IS ALSO SILENT THAT 'HOW AND WHEN', YOUR GOOD OF FICE ASUMED SUCH JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICES U/S 153A OF THE ACT., AND THE EVIDENCE/ SUPPORTING DOCUMENT, FACTS GIVING RISE TO 'HOW & WHEN' THE JURISDICTION IS ASUMED TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U'S 153A OF THE ACT, IS UNSUPPORTED ALONGWIT H THE NOTICES., THAT BESIDES THE MISSING FACTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION I N THE NOTICES, THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE LIMITATIONS AUT HORITIES IN THE LAW, FOR ISSUASNCE OF SUCH NOTICES., WHILE ISSUING THE LETTERS CONTAINING SUCH NOTICES I .E., THE CLEAR ATTEMPT TO INITIATE SUCH PROVISIONS OF THE AC T., EVEN THE BASIC PRINCIPALS OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LAW HAS BEEN COMPLETE LY IGNORED. NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT LICATION OF MIND, THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASONS FOR ISSUE OF SU CH NOTICES. AND NOR THERE WERE ANY REASONS FOR SELF -EXCEEDING AND SELF-ADOPTION OF JURISDICTION, ILLEGALLY, BY MI SUSE OF PUBLIC MACHINERY. THAT IN VIEW OF THE AFOR ESAID PATENT DEFICIENCIES AS PER LAW AND FACTS, THE NOTICES ISSU ED IN THE LETTERS BY YOUR OFFICE FAILS, BEING ILLEG AL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, FACTS AND WITHOUT ANY CAUSE OF ACTION AS PER LAW AND OTHER GROUNDS, ARE THUS VOID , UNSU STAINABLE AND NON-EST IN EYES OF LAW., AND AS SUCH REPLY TO YOUR AFORESAID LETTERS AND NOTICES STANDS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 2. HOWEVER, IRRESPECTIVE TO THE FACT THAT, THE LETT ERS/NOTICES STANDS DISPOSED OFF, WE KEEP OUR RIGHT RESERVE TO AGITATE & CLAIM AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF THE ILLEGAL NOTICES BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES UNDER T HE LAW. ALL RIGHTS AVAILABLE IN THE LAW ARE RESERVED. 3. WE FURTHER TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INFORM THAT BEING LAW ABIDING RESPECTABLE CITIZEN , ARE FILING ALL REGULAR TAX RETURNS, ON RECORDS, BEFORE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSIN G OFFICER, SHOWING TRUE INCOME TO BEST OF INFORMATI ON AND ARE ALREADY FINAL. AT THE SAME TIME WE DEPRECATE THE PR ACTICE OF ARM TWISTING BY THE HIGHLY REPUTED PUBLIC OFFICE, IN THE MANNER WE RECEIVED NOTICES FROM HIS EXCELLENCY SH. R.S. MEHTA, THE ACIT 3(1) CHANDIGARH, WITHOUT PROC EDURE AND AUTHORITY, ON REGULAR YEARLY BASIS, FOR SCRUTINY IN CASE OF VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., AND REPORTED THE MA TTER OF MALAFIDE HARASSMENTS, TO THE MINISTRY AND THE HON'BLE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, IT, CHANDIGARH, FOR NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE SAID INDIVIDUAL FOR MISUSE OF PUBLIC MACHINERY AND PUBLIC OFFICE. 17 IT IS LEARNT THAT AS PER PRACTICE IN THIS WORTHY CI RCLE, THE CASES OF PARTIES WITH HIGH DEGREE OF CRIM INAL REVENUE OFFENCES ALONE ARE TRIED, AND IF THAT IS THE FACT, THEN KINDLY NOTE THAT WE REFUSE TO SIT AMONG THE CL ASS OF THOSE ESTABLISHED DEFAULTERS IN THE LAW. UNLESS, USING TH E JURISDICTION IF AVAILABLE, THE CAREFUL & PURE EXA MINATION OF GROUNDS, FACTS/EVIDENCE, VALID LEGAL REASONS AND CI RCUMSTANCES RECOMMENDS A STRONG CASE, SUSTAINABLE I N THE EYES OF LAW, ACT'S., PROVISIONS, AND TRIAL: OTHERWI SE, KINDLY NOTE THAT, FOR ANY HARSH, MALAFIDE, FORC EFUL OR UNWARRANTED ATTEMPT, AND FAILURE OF PROCEEDINGS, IN LEGAL TEST, WILL ENTITLE US TO BE RELIEVED. OR IF IT WERE PROVED TO SATISFACTION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE LA WFUL, WE ASSURE THE COOPERATION TO BEST PERMISSIBLE , BY PROTECTING OUR LEGAL RIGHTS. JAI HIND THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, A.K.GUPTA FOR VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., HO. SR-37, SECTOR-26, M.MARG, CHANDIGARH COPY TO: CBDT 118. PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS N OT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC OBJECTION BUT REFERRED TO VARIOUS OTHER LA WS, OTHER THAN THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFICA LLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO REFER TO ONLY INCOME TAX LAW BECAUSE IN COME TAX IS A SPECIAL LAW AND THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER LAWS MAY NO T BE APPLICABLE. IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUERY, THE ASSESSEE HAS REPEATE D THE EARLIER REPLY. EVEN BEFORE US, HE SAID THAT THE OBJECTION AGAINST JURISDICTION MAYBE TAKEN AS PER THE LETTER DATED 14 .11.2005 ALREADY REPRODUCED HERE ABOVE. 119. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T RAISED ANY SPECIFIC OBJECTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 124(3) WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME OF 30 DAYS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE E CANNOT AGITATE THIS ISSUE LATER ON. WE MAY FURTHER POINT OUT THAT ASSESSEE IS CONTINUOUSLY STRESSING ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(4). ROLE OF SECTION 124(4) COMES INTO PLAY ONLY AFTER ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS OBJECTIONS UNDER SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT. 120. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS THAT ADMITTEDLY , THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT ITS RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AND HIS JURISDICTION WAS UNDER RANGE-III, CHANDIGARH. FURT HER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SEVERAL REPRESE NTATIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE IS AGGR IEVED BY NO ACTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE JURISDICTION VESTED WITHIN DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH BY AN ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH DATED 30.05.2005 IN EXERCISE OF PO WER UNDER SECTION 127(1) READ WITH SECTION 127(3) OF THE ACT. UNDER SECTION 127(1) OR 127(2), THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DY. COMMI SSIONER OR COMMISSIONER MAY PROVIDE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD BEFORE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION OF TRANSFE RRING THE CASE FROM ONE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANOTHER ASSESSING OFF ICER. HOWEVER, 18 SUB SECTION (3) TO SECTION 127 OF THE ACT OVERRIDES THE PROVISIONS IN SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) TO PROVIDE THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WOULD BE GIVEN TO AN ASSESSEE BEFORE TRANSFER OF HI S CASE WHERE THE TRANSFER IS FROM AN ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE OFFICES OF ALL SUCH OFFICERS ARE SI TUATED IN THE SAME CITY, LOCALITY OR PLACE. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING ASSESSED WITH RANGE-III, CHANDIGARH WHICH IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF CHANDIGARH AND HIS CASE S WERE BEING TRANSFERRED TO DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH WHI CH IS AGAIN SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY BY AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127(3) OF THE ACT IN VIEW THEREOF, WHERE THE TRANSFER OF J URISDICTION WAS FROM RANGE-III, CHANDIGARH TO DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH. THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNIT Y OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 127(1) R EAD WITH SECTION 127(3) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE CO MPETENT AUTHORITY IN TRANSFERRING THE CASE WITHIN ITS JURIS DICTION IN THE SAME CITY, THEN THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT AS PER THE ACT TO PROVIDE ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE M AKING SUCH TRANSFER. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 121. IN ANY CASE, THE ISSUE OF TRANSFER OF JURISDIC TION IS NOT APPEALABLE AND THE REMEDY LIES ELSEWHERE AND THE AS SESSEE CAN AVAIL THE SAME, IF ASSESSEE IS SO ADVISED. THE HON' BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN SMT. JASWINDER KAUR KOONER VS CIT IN 291 ITR 80 (P&H) HAD HELD AS UNDER : SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT IS CO NFINED TO DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND LIABILITY TO TAX. TH E OFFICER TO WHOM JURISDICTION IS TRANSFERRED AND WHO DERIVES JURISDI CTION FROM SUCH AN ORDER, CANNOT QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF SUCH AN ORDER. IF T HE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER OF TRANSFER, THE REMEDY OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO CHALLENGE SUCH AN ORDER IN INDEPENDENT PROCEEDINGS EITHER BEFORE THE HIGHER ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES AS PER THE ACT OR IN ANY INDEPENDENT PR OCEEDINGS BY WAY OF WRIT PETITION OR OTHERWISE. IF NO SUCH CHALLENGE IS MADE AT THE INITIAL STAGE, THE ISSUE CANNOT BE RAISED IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT RAISED THE OBJECTION AS TO THE JURISDICT ION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME BEFORE THE AO CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE UP THE IS SUE IN APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 122. WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR ISSUE OF INVOKING OF J URISDICTION AND PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 124 OF THE ACT AR OSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AU THORITY, MOHALI (ITA NOS. 762/CHD/2007 ACIT VS PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI A.Y 2003-04, ITA NO. 759/CHD/2008 PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MO HALI VS ACIT, A.Y. 2004-05, ITA 765/CHD/2008 DCIT VS PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI A.Y. 2004-05 AND OTHE RS AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2013 HELD AS UNDER : 34 ONE MORE ASPECT WAS HOTLY CONTESTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAD POWER TO ADJUDIC ATE THE ISSUE REGARDING EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION. MAIN S UBMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT EVEN AFTER THE DECISION O F HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. (SUPRA) THE ISSUE COULD NOT BE RAISED BECAUSE MANY FACTS WERE INVOLVED AND ADDITIONAL GROUND CAN BE RAISED I N RESPECT 19 OF LEGAL ISSUES AND FOR WHICH THE FACTS WERE ALREA DY ON RECORD. IN THIS REGARD SHE HAD FURTHER RELIED ON T HE OBSERVATIONS OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ARAVALI ENGINEERS P. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). SHE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN SECTION 24 6A OF THE ACT TO CHALLENGE THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. BRITISH INDI A COPRPORATION LTD. (SUPRA). 35 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAD MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ISSUE GOES TO TH E ROOT OF THE MATTER THEN THE SAME COULD BE RAISED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE MAINLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF WES T BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND NATION AL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. (SUPRA). WE DO NOT FIND FOR CE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. FI RST OF ALL WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT APPEAL IS A STATUTORY RIGHT AND NOT AN INHERENT RIGHT. (REFERE NCE MAY BE MADE TO SMT. GANGA BAI VS. VIJAY KUMAR AIR (1974) S .C 1126,1129, DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAM PAL SINGH (1992) SUPP (1) SCC, 191, 212, CIT VS. SYED JAFFER & SONS (199 2) 194 ITR 645, 649). THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATIO N OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. BRI TISH INDIA CORPORATION LTD.. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TWO WOOLLEN MILLS LOCATED IN KANPUR (U.P) AN D ANOTHER MILL IN GURDASPUR (PUNJAB). THE ASSESSEE F ILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 WHICH WAS PROCESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE ( 1), KANPUR (U.P). LATER ON NOTICES U/S 143(2) WERE ISSUE AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B OF THE ACT ON SEPT 7, 1977 AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), KANPUR. DU RING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AN ADDITIONAL GROUND W ITH REGARD TO LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER BY CENTRAL CIRCLE (1) WAS ALSO RAISED BECAUSE ASSESSME NT FILED STOOD TRANSFERRED FROM ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KANPUR TO INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RANGED, KANPUR BY ORDER DATED JULY 1, 1977. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO T HE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS VOID AB-INITIO. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONSIDERED THE APPEAL ON MERITS AS WELL AS ON QUESTION OF JURISDICTION. THE APPEAL WAS ALL OWED IN PART ON MERIT. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTI ON WHICH WAS PERMITTED TO BE RAISED BY MEANS OF ADDITIONAL G ROUND, WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT QUESTION OF TERRITO RIAL JURISDICTION OF THE ITO IS A MATTER ON WHICH THE DE CISION RESTS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION SIDE AND NOT WITH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON RAJA BHA HADUR SETH TEOMAL, VS. CIT, 36 ITR 9 AND WALLACE BROTHERS CO. LTD. 13 ITR 39. ON THESE FACTS HON'BLE HIGH COURT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND HELD AS UNDER: THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHO RITY CANNOT BE DISPUTED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. ALTERNATIVELY, IF SUCH A QUESTION ARISES THE QUESTI ON CAN BE ADDRESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OR THE BOARD, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN VIEW OF SUB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 124 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961, AND THIS BY NECESSARY COROLLARY EXCLUDES THE JURISDICTION OF TH E FIRST APPELLATE 20 AUTHORITY OR THE COURT. AN APPEAL TO AN APPELLATE A UTHORITY UNDER THE ACT LIES ON THE GROUNDS AS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 246 OF THE ACT. NONE OF ITS CLAUSES SHOWS THAT AN APPEAL ON THE QUESTION OF JUR ISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS MAINTAINABLE. UNLESS SOME PR EJUDICE IS CAUSED TO A PARTY BY A WRONG OR IRREGULAR EXERCISE OF JURISDI CTION BY A COURT, NO INTERFERENCE IN APPEAL OR REVISION IS LEGALLY PERMI SSIBLE. HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT THE BURDEN WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO STATE SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFER W AS RECEIVED BY IT, WHICH IT FAILED TO DISCHARGE. THERE WAS NO PLEA EVEN IN T HE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY PREJUDICE HAD BEEN CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED BY THE INCOME-T AX OFFICER. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAD THE JURISDICTION WHEN THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AND A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. SUBSEQUENT C HANGE IN THE JURISDICTION IF ANY UNLESS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED, WOULD NOT IN ANY MANNER VITIATE THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THE LACK OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL AT THE MOST SHOULD HAVE REMI TTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR COMPLE TING THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS VALID. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTESTED THE A BOVE DECISION BY SUBMITTING THAT THE DECISION WAS WRONG BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION FOR TRANS FER U/S 124(3)(A). BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ISSUE OF TERR ITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT HAS CHALL ENGED THE ABSENCE OF ORDER U/S 127. WE HAVE ALREADY MADE DET AILED DISCUSSION REGARDING ORDER PASSED U/S 127 AS WELL A S SIGNIFICANCE OF RAISING THE OBJECTION BEFORE THE AS SESSING AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION BUT COMBINED READING OF SECTIONS 120, 12 4 & 127 CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS ADMI NISTRATIVE MATTER AND THE PURPOSE OF RAISING OBJECTION IS THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE SETTLED AT THE THRESHOLD BY THE ADMINISTRATI VE AUTHORITIES AND THAT IS WHY THERE IS NO PROVISION F OR FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER THESE SEC TIONS. 123. ONE MORE CONTENTION WAS RAISED BY THE LD. AR F OR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE AC T HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT CALLING FOR ANY OBJECTION FROM THE A SSESSEE. SECTION 127(3) PROVIDED THAT OPPORTUNITY IS NOT REQ UIRED TO BE GIVEN IF THE CASES ARE REQUIRED TO BE TRANSFERRED W ITHIN THE CITY. 124. IN ANY CASE, AS PER SUB SECTION 5 OF SECTION 1 24, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INHERENT JURISDICTION AND IF SUCH INHERENT JURISDICTION IS EXERCISED, THEN SAME CANNOT BE OBJE CTED. IN THIS REGARD, WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO OBSERVATION OF HO N'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SIRI PAUL OSWAL 293 ITR 273 (P&H) : PARA 16 - A DISTINCTION HAS TO BE MADE BETWEEN A S ITUATION WHEN THERE IS INHERENT LACK OF JURISDICTION AND A SITUATION WHERE JURISDICTION IS IRREGULARLY ASSUMED AND PLEA OF WANT OF JURISDICTION CAN BE WAIVED BY A PARTY. IN THE LATTER SITUATION, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER PARTY WHO COULD WAIVE THE P LEA OF JURISDICTION, RAISED SUCH A 21 PLEA AND WHETHER SUCH A PARTY HAD BEEN PREJUDICED O N ACCOUNT OF ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION. THE PRESENT CASE, IN OU R VIEW, FALLS IN THE SECOND CATEGORY. THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WHOM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT WER E TRANSFERRED AND WHO EXERCISED JURISDICTION TO ASSESS WEALTH-TAX ALSO WITH THE PAR TICIPATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD RAIS ED AN OBJECTION, THE PROCEEDINGS COULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED BACK TO THE CONCERNED WEALTH- TAX OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING PROCEEDED FURTHER AND ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN FINALIZED, PLEA OF LACK OF JURISDICTION COULD NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN APPEAL, WITHOUT SHOWING ERROR IN THE ORDER ON THE MERIT AND WITHOUT SHOWING ANY PREJUDIC E TO THE ASSESSEE BY EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 125. IN THE CASE OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., AS P OINTED OUT BY US THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT BY ISSUE OF WARRANT AND THEREAFTER THE PANCHNAMA IN THE NAME OF S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, A SHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. AND SHRI VI JAY KUMAR GUPTA AT HOUSE NO. 3007, SECTOR 9D CHANDIGARH WAS I SSUED. THE COPY OF THE PANCHNAMA HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AND IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 59 AND 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FUR THER INFORMATION WAS SOUGHT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATI ON ACT AND HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGA RH THAT SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT AT PERSONS NAMED AT S.NO. 1 I.E. S/ SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES L TD. AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA. IN THE SAID COMMUNICATION, IT I S ALSO MENTIONED THAT SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMIS ES OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AT SCO NO. 37 SECTOR 26 CHANDIGARH. BUT THAT IN NO WAY ESTABLISH THAT THE SEARCH WAS NOT CARRIED UP ON M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY NAMED AS M/S V ISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. INITIALLY, REGISTERED OFFICE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS AT HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 9, CHANDIGARH AND THE AUTHORI ZATION WAS ISSUED TO SEARCH THE SAID PREMISES UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AND NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE E XERCISE OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT AT THE SAID ADDRESS AND FURTHER, BECAUSE SURVEY OPERATIONS WERE ALSO CARRIED OUT AT ANOTHER PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MAKE THE SEARCH CARRI ED OUT AT THE OLD REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE AS INVALID. ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SEARCH IS CARRIED OU T AGAINST M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD., BUT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE E HAD BEEN CHANGED TO M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. WE DO NOT FIN D ANY MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND THE SA ME IS REJECTED. 126. ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGAR H IS NOT CORRECT AS HE HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF CHANGE IN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FIRST IN STANCE, SUCH EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX-I, CHANDIGARH IS NOT AN APPEALABLE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHIN TH E JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH AND EVEN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS PASSE D IN 2005 BY ASSESSING OFFICER, CIRCLE III(1) AND THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX-I HAS TRANSFERRED THE JURISDICTION FROM RANGE-I II, CHANDIGARH TO THE CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH OF M/S VALCO INDU STRIES LTD. BY ORDER DATED 30.05.2005 AND WE FIND THAT THE SAID EX ERCISE OF CHANGE OF JURISDICTION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CARRIED O UT BY THE 22 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I AND NO FAULT CAN BE FO UND WITH THE SAME. 127. ADMITTEDLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS BUT EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING TH E RETURN OF INCOME AT THE OLD ADDRESS WHICH WAS WITHIN THE JURI SDICTION OF RANGE-III CHANDIGARH. EVEN THE ASSESSMENT IN THE C ASE WAS PASSED AS LATE AS JANUARY,2005 BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE-III(1) WHICH IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CHANGED ITS PLACE OF BUSIN ESS, DOES NOT TRANSFER THE JURISDICTION. IN ANY CASE, THE JURISD ICTION TO ASSESS CASES UPON WHOM SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS HAVE BE EN CARRIED OUT INHERENTLY VESTS WITH ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRA L CIRCLE CHANDIGARH, THEN TECHNICALITIES OF TRANSFERRING THE CASE FROM THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I TO THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II AND THEREAFTER TO CEN TRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH IS A MERE PROCEDURE AND NON-FOLLOWING OF SUCH PROCEDURE DOES NOT MAKE TO EFFECT THE JURISDICTION VESTED IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF TRANSFER CAN ONLY BE PAS SED IF THERE IS A CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NO MERIT AS IN THE CASES OF SEA RCH & SEIZURE OPERATION, INHERENT JURISDICTION IS WITH CENTRAL CI RCLE, CHANDIGARH AND AFTER SUCH OPERATIONS UPON ANY PERSON/S, THE CO NCERNED COMMISSIONER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER SUCH CAS ES BY EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION UNDER THE RESPECTIVE SE CTION OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING ASSESSED UNDER THE JURISDICT ION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH AND HE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER THE JURISDICTION FROM RANGE-I II CHANDIGARH TO CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH AND THE SAID ORDER HAVIN G BEEN PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I HAS BEEN VALIDLY EX ERCISED AND ONCE THE JURISDICTION IS VESTED IN THE ASSESSING OF FICER BY A VALID TRANSFER ORDER, THEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COM PLETED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY EXERCISED. R EJECTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF ASSESS ING OFFICER IN EXERCISING THE POWER TO ASSESS THE COMPANY UNDER SE CTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 27 & 30/CHD/2008 ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 8. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND FOLLOWING T HE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD T HE JURISDICTION TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AS THE SAID JURISDICTION WAS VALIDLY VESTED IN THE ASSESSING OF FICER BY THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127(3) OF THE ACT BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME 23 TAX-I, CHANDIGARH. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VALIDLY INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THIS REGARD. IN ANY CASE, NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL AND THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THUS, THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH APRIL,2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH APRIL, 2014 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH