M/s Rungta Irrigation Ltd., New Delhi V. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 1224/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1642 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RADHEY SHYAM
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVESHPODDER
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Question of law; Competent authority; Assessment record; Block assessment; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 147; 68; 27; 148; 263; 132; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 292BB; 143(2); 124(5); 64; 13; 119; 22; 153C; 92CA; 20

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 , B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) . . , . . ! , ' #$ ) [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 1224/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED (PAN: AAACR0829F) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING 08.07.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.09.2019 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI DEVESH PODDER, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI RADHEY SHYAM, CIT, DR ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 21, KOLKATA DATED 22.04.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 15-16. 2. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENT ION TO THE LEGAL ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, WHI CH IS AS UNDER: 2. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ORIGINALLY BEEN ASSE SSED BY LD. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI SINCE 2007. THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION WAS FILED ON 30.09.2015 AGAINST WHICH NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY LD. DCIT, C IRCLE-21(1), NEW DELHI. AS A MATTER OF FACT LD. DCIT 21(1), NEW DELHI HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT COMPANY. FURTHER ORDER U/S. 127 WAS PASSED BY LD. CIT, CENTRAL PATNA VIDE WHICH THE CURRENT AO GOT JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT COMPANY. LD. AO PR OCEEDED ON BASIS OF 143(2) ISSUED BY LD. DCIT, CIRCLE-21(1) NEW DELHI. NO NOTICE UNDER 143( 2) WAS ISSUED AT RANCHI OR CURRENT AO. AS SUCH, AS A MATTER OF FACT NO VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED AGAINST THE RETURN FILED, AS SUCH, ASSESSMENT FRAMED THEREBY IS AB INITIO VOID AND FIT TO BE QUASHED. 3. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL , WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUE WHICH IS CANVASSED BEFORE US IS A PURE LEGAL ISSUE. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN NTPC VS. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), SUCH LEGAL ISSUE CAN BE R AISED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND ACCORDINGLY WE ADMIT THIS LEGAL GROUND RAISED FOR T HE FIRST TIME BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE 2 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 THOUGH VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED BY THE LD. CIT, DR. MOREO VER WE NOTE THAT THIS LEGAL ISSUE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND SINCE ALL MATERI AL FACTS FOR DECIDING THIS LEGAL ISSUE ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE PARTIES WERE HEARD ON THIS ISSUE ONLY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SUCCEED , THEN THE APPEAL WILL BE RE-FIXED FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS PERTAINING TO THE LEGAL ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS HEADQUARTERS IS AT 101, PRAGATI TOWERS, 26 RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110007. THE APPELLANT WAS INITIALLY ASSESSED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-15 (1), NEW DELHI. BY AN ORDER DATED 08.10.2008 PASSED U/S 127(1) BY THE LD. CIT, DEL. V , NEW DELHI, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE CHARGE OF D CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI. PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2008, THE INCOME-TAX ASSES SMENTS FROM AY 2007-08 AND ONWARDS WERE PASSED BY THE SAID DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAN CHI. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 I.E. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE RETURN OF IN COME WAS ELECTRONICALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.09.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS .1,27,03,820/-. SUBSEQUENTLY A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) (PAPER BOOK PAGE 3&4) DATED 28.07.2016 WAS ISSUED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE-21(1), NEW DELHI TO THE ASSESSEE AND THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY A NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 30.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE SAME OFFICER. UPON RECEIPT OF THE NOT ICE U/S 142(1), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS LETTER DATED 17.07.2017 OBJECTING TO THE VALIDITY O F THE NOTICES ON THE GROUND THAT THE OFFICER ISSUING THE NOTICES DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE. SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUING OF THE SAID NOTICES, THE LD. PR. CIT-7, NEW DELHI I SSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 07.08.2017 PROPOSING TO TRANSFER THE JURISDICTION OVER THE APP ELLANTS CASE TO DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTR OL OF PR. CIT (CENTRAL), KOL-2, KOLKATA (PAGE 6 OF PAPER BOOK). ON RECEIPT OF THE SAID SHO W CAUSE NOTICE, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED ITS OBJECTION VIDE LETTER DATED 16.08.2017 (PAGE 7 OF P APER BOOK)WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 5. APPRECIATING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE (SUPRA), THE LD. PR. CIT, DELHI-7 DID NOT PROCEED ANY FURTHER. THE PR. CIT, CENTRAL P ATNA HOWEVER ISSUED A NOTICE DATED 24.10.2017 (PAGE 8 OF PAPER BOOK) PROPOSING CENTRAL IZATION OF CASE RECORDS WITH ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA AND SOUGHT THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO THE PROPOSED TRANSFER. THEREAFTER, BY AN ORDER U/S 127 OF THE ACT DATED 03.11.2017 (PAGE 9 OF PAPER BOOK), THE ASSESSEES CASE RECORDS WERE TR ANSFERRED TO THE CHARGE OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA. ON RECEIVING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE IN TERMS OF THE ORDER U/S 127 DATED 03.11.2017, THE ACIT, CENTRAL C IRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 4 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 142(1) FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUE OF THE NOTICE U/S 142(1), THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA FRAMED THE ASSES SMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 29.12.2017. NARRATING THE FOREGOING FACTS AND REFER RING TO THE NOTICES AND ORDERS PASSED ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE C OMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT BY THE AO WHO HE LD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS, THEREFORE, BAD IN LAW AND A NU LLITY IN THE EYES OF LAW BEING CORAM NON JUDICE . 6. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH BY SHRI DEVESH PODDAR, THE LD. AR, THAT IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISS UED ONLY ONCE. SUCH NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 28.07.2016 BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), DELHI, WHO AD MITTEDLY DID NOT HAD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE AFTER THE CASE RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT WERE TRANSFERRED BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER U/S. 127 DATED 08.10.2008 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT, DELHI-V. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING OF THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2008 AND TILL THE CASE RECORDS WERE AGAIN TRANSFERRED U/S 127 DATED 03.11.2017 TO THE CHARGE OF THE PRESENT AO, ALL ORDERS DURING SUCH INTERVENING PERIOD WERE PASSED BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI. THE LD. AR THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT IN JUNE 2016 A VALID NOTIC E U/S 143(2) IN RELATION TO RETURN FILED FOR AY 2015-16 COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED ONLY BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,RANCHI AND BY NONE ELSE. HE POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE ENTIRE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE REVENUE FOR AY 2015-16, ONLY ONE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND THAT TOO BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), NEW DELHI. BASED ON SUCH NOTICE ALONE , THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA ULTIMATELY FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 29.12.2017. THE LD. AR THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) ISSU ED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), NEW DELHI WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE ILLEGAL, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 142(1) AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDER U/S 143(3) PASSED B Y THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA WAS ALSO AB INITIO VOID AND THEREFORE ILLEG AL. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE ISSUE OF 5 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS A NON-CURABLE DEFECT AND WHIC H COULD NOT CURED EVEN WITH THE TERMS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. CIT, DR SHRI RADHEY SHYAM, V EHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONTENDED THAT IT WAS NEVER IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANTS HEAD QUARTER WAS SITUATED AT 101, PRAGATI TOWER, 26 RAJENDRA PLACE AT NEW DELHI. FOR BUTTRESSING THIS FACT, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FORM 36 FILED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONTENDED THAT EVEN AS ON DATE (PRESENTLY)AS AL SO IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE SAME ADDRESS AT NEW DELHI IS REFLECTE D. THUS, ACCORDING TO LD. CIT, DR, SINCE THE ADDRESS OF THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF THE AP PELLANT FALLS UNDER THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF ACIT, CIR-21(1), NEW DELHI, HE HAD RIGHTLY ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S. SEC. 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE AFORESAID FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, ACCORDING TO LD. CIT, DR, SINCE THE AO, NEW DELHI ENJOYED CONCURRENT JURISDICTION AND HE HA D ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2), THE SAME WAS LEGALLY VALID. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY MERIT. HE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT IF THE ASSE SSEE HAD ANY OBJECTION REGARDING JURISDICTION OF ACIT, CIR-21(1), NEW DELHI, THE ASS ESSEE WAS AT LIBERTY TO INTIMATE THE SAME OR BRING IT TO THE NOTICE OF AO, NEW DELHI THE FACT OF JURISDICTION OF AO AT RANCHI. ACCORDING TO LD. CIT, DR, WITHOUT RAISING THE OBJEC TION WITHIN A MONTHS TIME AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OR 143(2), AS ENVISAGED U/S. 124(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS STOPPED/SHUT-OUT FROM DOING SO. THEREAFTER, IN SUPP ORT OF VARIOUS CONTENTIONS RAISED, THE LD. CIT, DR FURNISHED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION, RELEVAN T EXTRACTS THEREOF ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- I) JURISDICTION IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE AND NOT A SUBJECT MATTER FOR THE PURPOSE. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABHISHE K JAIN HAS HELD THAT SUB-SECTION(4) AND (6) OF SECTION 124 AND FOR THAT MATTER SUB-SECT ION (2) AND (4) OF SECTION 124 AFTER AMENDMENT W.E.F 1ST APRIL, 1988 ARE PROCEDURAL SECT IONS. THEY RELATE TO ADMINISTRATION AND EXERCISE OF POWERS/ AUTHORITY BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CERS/ INCOME TAX OFFICERS AND ARE NOT PART OF THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW. THAT THE ACT I. E. INC OME TAX ACT 1961 BEING A COMPLETE CODE DEALS WITH SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS. SECT ION 120/124/127 GOVERN THE PROCESS OF PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT AND NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OR ITS PURPOSE. THEY RELATE TO CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/INCOME TAX OFFICERS AND THE A SSESSEES IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS A MATTER OF MERELY A PROCESS. AN IRREGULARITY IN PROCEDURE NEED NOT RESULT IN ANNULMENT UNLESS THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY STIPUL ATES TO THE CONTRARY. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHT TO PUT A CLOCK BACK AND DIRE CT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER/ASSESSING OFFICER TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE NOTWITHSTANDING THE DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY PROCEDURAL NORMS. 6 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 II). THE PROVISION ON SEC 127 OF THE ACT DOES NOT S PEAK OF TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION BUT TRANSFER OF CASE. BEING AN ENACTMENT AIMED AT COLLECTING REVENUE, THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT INTEND COLLECTION OF REVENUE TO BE BOGGED DOWN ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL P LEA OF JURISDICTION. IT HAS, THEREFORE, PRESCRIBED THE LIMIT UP TO WHICH THE PLEA OF JURISD ICTION MAY BE RAISED. AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 124(5)(A), THE RIGHT IS LOST AS SOON AS THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. EVEN WHERE THE RIGHT IS EXERCISED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED, THE QUESTION IS TO BE DECIDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OR BY THE BOARD. COURTS DO NOT COME INTO THE PICTURE. S.S. AHLUWALIA (SUPRA), EXAMINES SEVERAL DECISIONS WHICH WERE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID CASE AND WERE HELD TO BE NOT GERMANE AN D APPLICABLE. THIS DECISION ALSO EXPLAINS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT AND SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE SAID POWER, TO OBSERVE THAT THE SECTION DOES NOT SPEAK OF THE TRANSFER OF JURIS DICTION BUT TRANSFER OF CASE AS DEFINED IN SECTION. III). THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTIONS CANNOT BE APPEALA BLE IF ASSESSEE FAILS TO RAISE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN STIPULATED TIME BEFORE AO. A) IN WALLACE BROTHERS & CO. LTD. V. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39, FEDERAL COURT HAD HELD THAT THE OBJECTION TO PLACE OF ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE RAISE D IN AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1922. B.) THIS VIEW WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN RAIBAHADUR SETH TEOMAL VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,[1959] 36 ITR 9(SC) HOLD ING THAT THE OBJECTION AS TO THE PLACE OF OBJECTION UNDER THE 1922 ACT COULD NOT BE MADE A SUBJECT OR ISSUE BEFORE THE APPELLATE FORUMS INCLUDING THE TRIBUNAL AND REFERENCE TO THE HIGH COURT. C.) THE POSITION IS NO DIFFERENT UNDER THE ACT I.E. INCOME TAX ACT 1961, AS WAS ELUCIDATED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN KANJI MAL & SONS VS. C.I.T. (1982) 138 ITR 391 (DEL), WHEREIN REFERENCE TO SAID TWO DECISIONS WAS MADE AN D IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO RAISE OBJECTION BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFI CER WITHIN THE TIME, HE WILL BE SHUT OUT FROM RAISING THE QUESTION ALTOGETHER. IV). THE CONCEPT OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION AND INH ERENT JURISDICTION IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY HONBLE COURTS AND RELIED ON HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RT DECISION IN THE CASE OF S.S. AHLUWALIA AND ABHISHEK JAIN VS. ITO. 8. AFTER TAKING US THROUGH THE CASE LAWS/ISSUES CON TENDED AS AFORESTATED, THE LD. CIT, DR ARGUED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ACIT, CIRCL E-21(1), NEW DELHI HAD THE POWER TO ASSESS INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING WITHIN THE TERRIT ORIAL AREA AT DELHI AS IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID OFFICER DID NOT HAVE JUR ISDICTION IN VIEW OF LOCATION OF THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE ADDRESS AT DELHI. IT WA S URGED BY THE LD. CIT, DR THAT SECTION 124(5) OF THE ACT SAVES ASSESSMENT MADE BY AN ASSES SING OFFICER PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT DOES NOT BRING TO TAX ANYTHING OTHER THA N 'THE INCOME ACCRUING, ARISING OR RECEIVED IN THAT AREA OVER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER EXERCISES JURISDICTION. HOWEVER, LD. CIT, DR CLARIFIED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 124( 5) OF THE ACT WHICH SAVES THE ACTION OF 7 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 AO IN CERTAIN CASES, SAID SECTION DOES NOT POSTULAT E MULTIPLE ASSESSMENTS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICERS, OR ASSESSMENT OF PART OR PORTIO N OF AN INCOME [SEE KANJIMAL& SONS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI, (1982) 138 I TR 391 (DEL)]. THUS, ACCORDING TO LD. CIT, DR, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICERS HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION ENSURE THAT ONLY ONE OF THEM PROCEEDS AND ADJUDICAT E. THIS, ACCORDING TO LD. CIT, DR, IS THE PURPORT AND OBJECTIVE BEHIND SUB-SECTION (2) TO SECTION 124 OF THE ACT. 9. FURTHER IT WAS POINTED OUT BY SHRI RADHEY SHYAM, THE LD. CIT, DR THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO THE CASE OF A SSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT NEW DELHI UP TO AY 2007-08 AND THE JURISDICTION WAS TRANSFERRED U/S 127 OF THE ACT ONLY THEREAFTER. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO LD. CIT, DR, IT IS CLEAR TH AT THE AO, NEW DELHI HAD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO LD. CI T, DR, SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK JA IN VS ITO (405 ITR 1). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF SS AHLUWALIA (225 TAXMAN 131) AND THE LEGAL POSITION EXPLAINED THEREI N, WAS FOLLOWED IN ABHISHEK JAIN VS. ITO (SUPRA).THE LD. CIT, DR TOOK US THROUGH THE ORD ER OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN S. S. AHLUWALIAS CASE (RELEVANT PARAS 34 TO 39) AND A LSO RELEVANT PARAS 3 & 19 OF THE JUDGMENT IN ABHISHEK JAIN VS. ITO (SUPRA).WITH REFE RENCE TO THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THESE JUDGMENTS, THE LD. CIT, DR CONTENDED THAT THE ACIT, CIRCLE-21(1), DELHI HAD TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE W HICH CONTINUED TO BE SITUATED AT 26 RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE REFORE HE URGED THAT THE SAID ACIT, CIRCLE-21(1), DELHI HAD VALIDLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) DATED 28.07.2016 BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE-21( 1), DELHI WAS CLAIMED TO BE LEGALLY VALID, THE LD. CIT, DR SUBMITTED AFTER THE ORDER U/ S 127 DATED 03.11.2017 WAS PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT, CENTRAL PATNA, THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCL E 3(1), KOLKATA COULD VALIDLY PROCEED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BY ONLY ISSUING A NOTICE U/ S 142(1), IN TERMS OF SECTION 127(4) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE LD. CIT, DRS FORCEFUL CONTENTI ON THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA UNDERTOOK WERE LEGALLY VALID IN TERMS OF EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127(4) ACCORDING TO WHICH THE SUCCESSOR AO COULD PROCEED WITH THE ASSESSMENT FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH PREDECESSOR AO HAD LEFT THE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT, DR 8 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 THEREFORE STRONGLY URGED THAT THE LEGAL PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL DID NOT HAVE LEGS TO STAND AND, THERE FORE, DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. IN PARTICULAR, IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE DREW OUR ATTENTIO N TO PARA 9 OF HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 9. IN THIS CASE, IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED, OVER THE JURISDICTION BEFORE THE A.O WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF IS SUE OF NOTICE. THE A.O. WAS HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE AND THERE WA S CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. IT IS TO REFERS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF HARSHA DCHIMAN LAL MODI VS. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. &ANR., (2005) 7 SCC 791, WHICH CLASSIFIES AND DRAWS JURISPRUDENTIAL DIFFERENCE AMONGST - TERRITORIAL OR LOCAL JURISDICTION; PECUNI ARY JURISDICTION; .AND JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER. AS FAR AS TERRITORIAL OR PECUNIARY JURISDICTIONS ARE CONCERNED, OBJECTION SHOULD BE TAKEN AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNIT Y AND FOR BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AND NOT AT THE SUBSEQUENT STAGE. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE DISCUSSION, OBJECTIONS AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CA SE CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. THEY RELATE TO PLACE OF ASSESS MENT. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WOULD NOT PER SE LACK JURISDICTION, ALBEIT HE HAD CONCURRENT JURISDI CTION WITH THE DCIT. 9.1 THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF JURISDICTION COULD HAV E BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE A.O. AFTER EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 1 43(2). BUT IT HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A). CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE CONCEPT OF CONCURREN T JURISDICTION. THE INSTRUCTION NO. 119 IS ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE, WHICH IS THOUGH BINDIN G ON A.O., BUT NOT ON APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) WAS BASED ON CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. THE NOTICE WAS LEGALLY ISSUED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. 9.2 THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION SHALL BE DETERMINE D BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR-GENERAL AS PER SECTION 124(4) . THEREFORE, AS PER DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF S.S. AHLUWALIA, FALLOWED AND STRENGTHENED BY DECISION OF ABHISHEK JAIN VS. ITO, THE APPELLANT LOSES ITS R IGHT ONCE THE ASSESSMENT IS-COMPLETED FOR CHALLENGING OF JURISDICTION. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL TH ESE FACTS, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ASSESSMENT OF THE AO M AY BE UPHELD AND THE MATTER MAY BE DECIDED ON MERIT, RATHER ON TECHNICAL ISSUE OF JURI SDICTION. 10. IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECI SION OF ITAT E BENCH, DELHI IN ITO VS. NVS BUILDERS (P) LTD. ITA NO. 3729/DEL/2012, A Y 2006-07 DATED 08.03.2018 AND THE ORDER OF THE C BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT &ORS IN ITA NO. 268, 72, 235 & 2 058/KOL/2017 PASSED ON 28.09.2018. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT ON THE RECEI PT OF THE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 30.06.2017, THE APPELLANT BY ITS LETTER DATED 17.07 .2017 HAD OBJECTED TO THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID NOTICE ON THE GROUND OF JURISDICTION. HE POINT ED OUT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SIMILARLY OBJECTED TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 07.08.2017 ISSUED BY PR. CIT-7, NEW DELHI U/S 127 BY ITS LETTER DATED 16.08.2017. HE POINTED OUT THAT HAVING APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE DID NOT VEST WITH HIM, THE LD. PR. CIT-7, NEW DELHI 9 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 HAD DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 127, WHICH HE HAD I NITIATED BY HIS NOTICE DATED 07.08.2017. HE FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THA T AFTER THE LD. PR. CIT-7, NEW DELHI DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY HIM FOR CENTRA LIZATION OF APPELLANTS CASE WITH ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEE DINGS U/S 127 FOR SUCH PROPOSED CENTRALIZATION WERE TAKEN UP BY THE PR. CIT, CENTRA L PATNA WHO HELD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE AT THE RELEVANT POINT IN TIME. THE LD. AR THEREFORE URGED THAT IF THE ACTIONS OF PR. CIT-7, NEW DELHI AND THE PR. CIT, CE NTRAL PATNA ARE CONSIDERED CUMULATIVELY AND HARMONIOUSLY THEN THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT ONE CAN DRAW IS THAT THE PR. CIT-7, NEW DELHI HAD TACITLY ADMITTED THAT NEITHER HE NOR ANY OFFICER ACTING UNDER HIS JURISDICTION COULD EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AFTER THE CIT-V, NEW DELHI HAD PASSED THE ORDER U/S 127 DATED 08.10.2008 TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION TO THE CHA RGE OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RANCHI. DRAWING ATTENTION TO THESE JURISDICTIONAL FACTS, TH E LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IN JUNE 2016 WHEN THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED, THE ACIT CIRCLE-21(1), NEW DELHI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT S CASE AND CONSEQUENTLY THEREFORE THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) ISSUED BY HIM WAS NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. CONSEQUENTLY THEREFORE WHEN THE AO AT KOLKATA PROCEEDED WITH THE ASSESSMEN T SUBSEQUENT TO SUCH ILLEGAL NOTICE, THE CONSEQUENT ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS EQUALLY BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO AT K OLKATA WHO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT, WHI CH ACCORDING TO LD. AR, IS MANDATORY TO ASSUME JURISDICTION TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) /144 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO LD. AR, NON-ISSUE OF LEGALLY VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS NOT A CURABLE DEFECT, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT, DR OPPOSING THIS LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT, THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE CONTINUES TO BE SITUATED AT 26 RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI,WHICH FALLS UNDER THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE ACIT, CIRCLE-21, NEW DELHI, AND THUSHE HAD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE, AS ENVISAGED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 120 AND 124 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT, DR, EVEN AS PER SECTION 1 27 OF THE ACT, WHICH DEALS WITH THE 10 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OF A CASE, SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 127 STIPULATES THAT THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO RE-ISSUE OF ANY STATUTORY NOTICES ALRE ADY ISSUED BY THE AO OR AO FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. ACCORDING TO LD. CIT, DR THEREFORE, SINCE THE ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT ACIT, CIRCLE-21, NEW DELHI WAS HAVING TERRITOR IAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE SITUATED AT RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DE LHI, BY VIRTUE OF JURISDICTION BESTOWED U/S. 120 AND 124 OF THE ACT, HE HAD RIGHTLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME FOR ASSESSMENT OF AY 2015-16. IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES THEREFORE WHEN THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), KOLKATA, THE AO AT KOLKATA WAS NOT REQUIRED TO RE-ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WHICH HAD BEEN ALREADY BEEN ISSUED BY AO AT DELHI. ACCORDING TO LD. CIT, DR THEREFORE, TH ERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR OBJECTIVELY ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE, IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO LOOK AT THE FACTS, FOR WHICH A BIRDS EYE VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTE D FACTS WHICH ARE NOTED FROM THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, ARETABULATED IN THE FOL LOWING CHART. THESE FACTS ARE IMPORTANT TO DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE BEFORE US. SL. NO. DATE EVENTS 1. UPTO 08.10.2008 DCIT, CIRCLE-15(1), NEW DELHI WAS THE AO OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. 2. ON 08.10.2008 CIT-V, DELHI TRANSFERRED THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE U/S. 127 TO DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI. 3. FROM 09.10.2008 TO 03.11.2017 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI WAS THE AO OF ASSESSEE FOR ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT. 4. 28.07.2016 ACIT, CIRCLE-21(1), NEW DELHI ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. 30.06.2017 ACIT, CIRCLE-21(1), NEW DELHI ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. 17.07.2017 ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO JURISDICTION OF ACIT, CIRCLE-21(1), NEW DELHI. 7. 07.08.2017 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE/PROPOSAL FOR CENTRALIZATION OF ASSESSEES CASE AT KOLKATA ISSUED BY PR. CIT- 7, DELHI. 8. 16.08.2017 ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF PR. CIT- 7, NEW DELHI 9. 24.10.2017 PR. CIT, CENTRAL PATNA ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR CENTRALIZATION OF ASSESSEES CASE UNDER THE CHARGE OF PR. CIT, CENTRAL 2, KOLKATA. 11 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 10. 03.11.2017 PR. CIT, CENTRAL PATNAPASSED ORDER U/S. 127 CENTRALIZING THE ASSESSEES CASE WITH ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA UNDER THE CHARGE OF PR. CIT, CENTRAL 2, KOLKATA. 11. 09.11.2017 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATAINTIMATESTHE ASSESSEE U/S. 129 BEING THE SUCCEEDING AO FOR AY 2015-16. 12. 05.12.2017 NOTICE U/S 142(1) ISSUED BY ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA FOR AY 2015-16. 13. 29.12.2017 ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S. 143(3)OF THE ACT BY ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATAFOR AY 2015-16 12. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DATES AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THE FIRST LEGAL QUESTION TO BE ADJUDICATED IS, WHETHER THE ACIT, CIRCLE-21(1), NEW DELHI CAN BE SAID TO HAVE HAD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION (TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION) OVER THE ASSESSEE MERELY BECAUSE ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE WAS SITUATED AT RAJENDRA PLACE, NE W DELHI AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER HE WAS COMPETENT TO ISSUE A VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2 ) OF THE ACT FOR AY 2015-16. THIS QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED IN THE LIGHT OFTHE FA CT REMAINS THAT, BY AN EARLIER ORDER DATED 08.10.2008 PASSED U/S 127(1) OF THE ACT, THE THEN C IT-V, NEW DELHI HAD TRANSFERRED THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE FROM THE DCIT , CIRCLE-15(1), NEW DELHI TO THE CHARGE OF DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI. IF THE ANSWER T O THE PRECEDING QUESTION IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THEN THE NEXT QUESTION TO BE ADJUDICAT ED IS WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 29.12.2017 BY THE ACIT, CEN TRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA WAS LEGALLY VALID EVEN THOUGH NO VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF TH E ACT WAS ISSUED. 13. FOR UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL POSITION WITH REGAR D TO THE JURISDICTION OF INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, IT IS PERTINENT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 120, 124, 127 AND 129 OF THE ACT WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 120. JURISDICTION OF INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES (1) INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES SHALL EXERCISE ALL OR A NY 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. 12 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 (2) THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BOARD UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) MAY AUTHORISE 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 AU THORITIES 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 AUTHORISED BY IT MAY HA VE REGARD 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 OF CASES. (4) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SEC TIONS (1) AND (2), THE BOARD MAY, BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDER, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDI TIONS, RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED THEREIN,- (A) AUTHORISE ANY DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR TO P ERFORM SUCH FUNCTIONS OF ANY OTHER INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY AS MAY BE ASSIGNED TO HIM BY THE 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 (5) THE DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB- S ECTIONS (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 CLASS) TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM, CONCURRENTLY, THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT O F ANY AREA OR PERSONS 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 CO NCURRENTLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES, ANY AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK AMON GST THEM SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AMONG ST THEM MAY DIRECT, AND, FURTHER, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH HI GHER AUTHORITY AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF ANY SUCH AUTH ORITY 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 I N THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE,, DIRECT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OR TH E DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT OR THING UNDER THIS ACT OR ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER BY ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS, THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY EXERCISING 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 NOTIFICATION. 124. JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS (1) WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUE D UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEENV ESTED WITH JURISDICTION OVER ANY AREA, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, HE SHALL HAVE JURIS DICTION- 13 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 (A) IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIES 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 W HERE THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT DIRECTOR S GENERAL 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 NOTIFICATION 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 SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR AFTER THE C OMPLETION 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 SECT ION 148 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 144 T O SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. (C) WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN UNDER SECTION 13 2 OR SECTION 132A, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A N OTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153C OR AFTER TH E COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER.) (4) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (3), WHERE AN ASSESSEE CALLS IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN- ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM, REFER THE MATTER FOR DETE RMINATION UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE. (5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECT ION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HA VE ALL THE POWERS CONFERRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT ON AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE AREA, IF ANY, OVER WHICH HE HAS BEEN VES TED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120.] 127. POWER TO TRANSFER CASES (1) THE PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER MA Y, 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, TRANSFER ANY CASE FROM ONE OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS SUBORDINATE TO HIM (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOU T CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) TO ANY OTHER 14 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 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 TRANSFERRED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS TO WHOM THE CASE IS TO BE TRANSFERRED ARE NOT SUBORDINATE TO THE SAME DIRECTO R GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, (A) WHERE THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSION ERS OR COMMISSIONERS TO WHOM SUCH ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE SUBORDINATE ARE IN AGREEMENT , THEN THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER FROM WHOSE JURISDICTIO N THE CASE IS TO BE TRANSFERRED 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 REASO NS FOR DOING SO, PASS THE ORDER; (B) WHERE THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSION ERS OR COMMISSIONERS AFORESAID ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE M AY, SIMILARLY, BE PASSED BY THE BOARD OR ANY SUCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, AUTHORISE IN THIS BEHALF. (3) NOTHING IN SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) S HALL BE DEEMED TO REQUIRE ANY SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO BE GIVEN WHERE THE TRANSFER IS FROM ANY ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISD ICTION) TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURR ENT JURISDICTION) AND THE OFFICES OF ALL SUCH OFFICERS ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, LOCALI TY 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 THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. EXPLANATION: IN SECTION 120 AND THIS SECTION, THE WORD 'CASE', IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SPECIFIED IN ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION I SSUED THEREUNDER, MEANS ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BE FORE SUCH DATE, AND INCLUDES ALSO ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED A FTER THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR. 129. CHANGE OF INCUMBENT OF AN OFFICE WHENEVER IN RESPECT OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS AC T AN INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY CEASES TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION AND IS SUCCEEDED BY ANOTHER WHO HAS AN D EXERCISES JURISDICTION, THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY SO SUCCEEDING MAY CONTINUE THE PROCEEDING FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH THE PROCEEDING WAS LEFT BY HIS PREDECESSOR: PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED MAY DEMAND THA T BEFORE THE PROCEEDING IS SO CONTINUED THE PREVIOUS PROCEEDING OR ANY PART THEREOF BE REOPENED OR THAT BEFORE ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS PASSED AGAINST HIM, HE BE REHEARD. 14. A BARE READING OF THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS REVE AL THAT AN ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED BY THE BOARD UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT. THE DIRECTION U/S. 120(1) IS GIVEN BY THE BOARD, FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWE RS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, AS SPECIFIED U/S. 116 OF THE ACT. AS PER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT, THE BOARD MAY DELEGA TE ITS POWERS TO INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES 15 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 116, FOR ISSUING THE ORDERS IN WRITING, FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF T HE OTHER INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WHO ARE SUBORDINATE TO THAT AUTHORITY. WE ALSO NOTE THAT TH E CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CAN BE VESTED IN MORE THAN ONE AO, WHICH IS DISCERNIBLE BY A CONJOIN T READING OF SECTION 120(5) WITH SECTION 120(2) OF THE ACT. SECTION 124(1) OF THE AC T CONFERS JURISDICTION ON AN AO, BY VIRTUE OF JURISDICTION VESTED BY ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER IS SUED BY CBDT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND / OR (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT. THE AO IS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT, OVER ANY AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, HE SH ALL HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ANY PERSON (ASSESSEE) CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE (ASSESSEE) CARRIES ON HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATED WITHIN TH E AREA EAR-MARKED FOR HIM (AO); OR IF THAT PERSONS (ASSESSEES) BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CAR RIED ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, THEN IF THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SI TUATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL TERRITORIAL AREA, THE AO GETS JURISDICTION. OTHER THAN THE ASS ESSEES WHO ARE NOT IN BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, IN THEIR CASES, THE AO WILL BE VESTED W ITH THE JURISDICTION IF THE PERSON (ASSESSEE) IS RESIDING WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AREA EAR-MARKED BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT SPEAKS ABOUT. HOWEVER, WHEN THERE IS A QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED AS TO WHE THER AN AO HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON THEN IT WOULD BE DECIDED BY THE AUTHORITIES AS STIPULATED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT BY DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMIS SIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISS IONERS CONCERNED, AS THE CASE MAY BE). IN CASE, IF THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO A REAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES(DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF C OMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISS IONERS AS STIPULATED THEREIN) THEN IF THE OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY ALSO AGREES THEN THE QUESTION WILL BE RESOLVED MUTUALLY OR ELSE IT WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CBDT. SO, ONCE THE AO OF AN ASSESSEE IS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION U/S. 124 READ WITH SEC. 120(1) & (2) O F THE ACT AND ISSUES STATUTORY NOTICES AGAINST AN ASSESSEE, NO PERSON (ASSESSEE) SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN AO WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER CLAUSES (A), (B) AND (C) OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SEC. 124(5) SAVES THE ACTIO N OF THE AO WHO HAS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME EARNED B Y THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TERRITORIAL 16 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 JURISDICTION VESTED IN HIM BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTI ONS OR ORDERS ISSUED U/S. 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT. SO, THIS SAVING PROVISION WHICH SAVES THE ACTION OF AN AO IS LIMITED TO THE INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE LIMITS O F HIS TERRITORIAL AREA AS CONFERRED TO HIM (AO) BY ORDER UNDER SUB-SEC. (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT AND NOT OTHERWISE. SO, THIS SAVING PROVISION WILL COME INTO PLAY ONLY IN THE FI RST PLACE THE AO IS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY AN ORDER/DIRECTION ISSUED UNDER SUB -SEC. (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT. THUS, AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT SECTIONS 120 AND 124 VEST JURISDICTION ON INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND ON AO RESPECTIVELY AN D, THEREFORE, BOTH SECTIONS I.E. SECTIONS 120 AND 124 OF THE ACT MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION AND HARMONIOUSLY TO DECIDE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WHICH IS PRESCRIBED BY THE DIRECTION OR ORDERS BY THE CBDT UNDER SUB-SEC. (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT. 15. HAVING TAKEN NOTE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120 & 124, WE HOWEVER FIND THAT SECTION 127 IS A SEPARATE CODE OF ITS OWN. SECTION 127(1) EMPOWERS, THE PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSION ER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, AS STIPULATED THEREIN , TO TRANSFER ANY CASE FROM ONE OR MORE AO SUBORDINATE TO HIM. IN OTHER WORDS, UNDER SECTIO N 127(1) THE PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, AS STIPULATED THEREIN, CAN TRANSFER T HE CASE RECORDS OF AN ASSESSEE FROM ONE AO TO ANOTHER FUNCTIONING UNDER HIS OWN CHARGE. ON THE CONTRARY, SECTION 127(2) EMPOWERS THE FOREGOING AUTHORITIES TO TRANSFER OF CASES FROM THE AOS FROM HIS JURISDICTION TO THE AOS WHO ARE NOT FUNCTIONING UNDER HIS JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE WHO ARE NOT SUBORDINATE TO SUCH AUTHORITY. IN THE CASES COVERED U/S 127(2) THEREFOR E, IF THE PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSI ONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, OF THE AO TO WHOM THE CASE OF AN ASSE SSEE IS PROPOSED TO BE TRANSFERRED, AGREES FOR THE TRANSFER, THEN THE TRANSFER CAN MADE U/S. 127(2)(A) OF THE ACT. IN CASE HOWEVER THERE IS ANY DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN SUCH STIPULATED A UTHORITIES, THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE REFERRED TO THE BOARD WHICH IN TURN DECIDES THE ISS UE OF TRANSFER OR THE BOARD CAN THEN AUTHORIZE AN INCOME TAX AUTHORITY BY A NOTIFICATION AS STIPULATED IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SEC.(2) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT. SUB-SECTION(4) OF SECTIO N 127 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT UPON THE 17 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 TRANSFER OF CASE BY THE AUTHORITIES SPECIFIED IN SU B-SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL NOT RENDER THE RE-ISSUE OF ANY NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY THE AO OR AOS FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. IN OTHER WORDS, SECTION 127(4) SAVES THE ACTIONS OF THE AO FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFE RRED AND ALLOWS THE AO TO WHOM THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE IS TRANSFERRED TO TAKE FORWARD THE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE POINT WHERE THE EARLIER JURISDICTIONAL AO HAD LEFT. HERE, IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 127 DEFINES THE EXPRESSION CASE. A READIN G OF THE SAID EXPLANATION SHOWS THAT THE EXPRESSION CASE IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON, WHOSE NAME IS SPECIFIED IN THE TRANSFER ORDER PASSED U/S. 127 OF THE ACT, MEANS ALL PROCEEDINGS U NDER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTI ON OR IT MAY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE SUCH DATE, AND INCLUDES ALSO ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION OF ANY YEAR. THIS DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION CASE IMPLIES THAT, ONCE A TRANSFER IS MADE BY THE AUTHORITY SPECIFIED IN SUB- SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT WHO HA D THE JURISDICTION OVER AN AO WHO IN TURN HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE/PERSON/ENTITY, B Y VIRTUE OF DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT, THEN THE ENTIRE A SSESSMENT OF THE PERSON I.E. PRE-TRANSFER AND POST-TRANSFER AS ON DATE OF TRANSFER WILL STAND TRA NSFERRED AND THEREAFTER FOR ALL PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE TO WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED, WILL BE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE SAID THE ASSESS EE FOR PRE AND POST PROCEEDINGS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER. IN OTHER WORDS, ONCE TRANSFER OR DER OF A CASE OF AN ASSESSEE IS ISSUED U/S. 127 OF THE ACT THE EFFECT WILL BE THAT (I) ALL THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DAT E OF SUCH ORDER WILL STAND TRANSFERRED, (II) ALL THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSE SSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER WILL STAND TRANSFERRED AND (III) ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER T HE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER ORDER HAVE TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE TRANSFERRED NEW AO. 16. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE NOW E XAMINE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ACIT, CI RCLE 21(1), NEW DELHI ENJOYED CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE S O AS TO ENABLE HIM TO ISSUE A VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR THE AY 2015-16. AS NOTED, THE JURISD ICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE INITIALLY 18 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 VESTED WITH THE ACIT, CIRCLE 15(1), NEW DELHI SINCE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER AREA OR LIMITS OF AREA, WHERE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE W AS SITUATED. THE VESTING OF JURISDICTION WITH THE SAID OFFICER WAS IN TERMS OF THE ORDER/ DI RECTION OF THE CBDT U/S. 120(1) OF THE ACT OR BY INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES (SEC. 116) WHO WERE DE LEGATED THE POWERS TO ISSUE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS VESTING THE JURISDICTION OF ASSES SMENT OVER THE AUTHORITIES SUBORDINATE TO IT. THE SAID ASSESSING OFFICER AT NEW DELHI ENJOYED EXC LUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT UPTO 08.10.2008. THEREAFTER, BY VIRTUE OF ORDER U/S 127(2) PASSED BY THE LD. CIT-V, DELHI DATED 08.10.2008, THE SAID AO AT NEW DELHI WAS DIVE STED OF HIS JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT AND THE JURISDICTION STOOD TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI. FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE ORDER U/S 127(2) DATE D 08.10.2008, WE FIND THAT THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE FROM THE CHA RGE OF ACIT, 15(1), NEW DELHI TO ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI WAS ABSOLUTE AND WITHOUT R ESERVING ANY RIGHT OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT AT NEW DELHI. 17. BEFORE US THE LD. CIT, DR VEHEMENTLY CONTENTED THAT SINCE THE PRESENT ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS AT NEW DELHI, THE AO, DELHI CON TINUED TO HAVE JURISDICTION AS PER SEC. 124 READ WITH SEC. 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT AND THE ACI T, CIRCLE 21(1), DELHIS ACTION OF ISSUING THE STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS SAV ED BY SUB-SEC. (5) OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT READ WITH SUB-SECTION (4) OF SEC. 127 OF THE AC T. WE ARE HOWEVER UNABLE TO ACCEPT SUCH CONTENTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. FOR ADJUDICAT ING THIS CONTENTION, LET US FIRST EXAMINE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT AND SUB-SEC. (4) OF SEC. 127 OF THE ACT, WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: SEC. 124(5) :- NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTI ON OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS CONFERRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT ON AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT O F THE INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE AREA, IF ANY, OVER WHICH HE HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120. SEC. 127(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 ASSESSIN G OFFICERS FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. EXPLANATION: IN SECTION 120 AND THIS SECTION, THE W ORD 'CASE', IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SPECIFIED IN ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION I SSUED THEREUNDER, MEANS ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BE FORE SUCH DATE, AND INCLUDES ALSO ALL 19 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED A FTER THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR. 18. FROM A PLAIN READING OF SUB-SEC. (5) OF SEC. 12 4 OF THE ACT, IT IS NOTED THAT THOUGH IT IS AN OVER-RIDING PROVISION YET IT HAS IN HERENT LIMITATION AS PRESCRIBED IN LAW. IF ONE CAREFULLY READS SUB-SECTION (5) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT, THEN IT WILL BE NOTED THAT IT STARTS WITH THE WORDS NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE ACT. THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT PROV ISIONS OF SUB-SEC. (5) OF SECTION 124 OVERRIDES ONLY THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT AND ANY ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ISSUED U/S. 120 OF THE ACT, WHICH NECESSARILY MEANS THAT NON- OBSTANTE CLAUSE IS LIMITED TO OPERATION OF SUB-SECT ION (1) TO (4) OF SEC. 124 OR DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE ACT AND NOT WITH REGARD TO ANY ORDER OF TRANSFER OF CASE OF AN ASSESSEE MADE U/S. 127 OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN ONE READS THE DEFINITION OF CASE AS SET OUT IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, THEN IT MEANS THAT WHEN A CHIEF COMMISS IONER OR COMMISSIONER MAKES AN ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION IN EXERCISE O F THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, FROM AN AO WHO IS VESTED WITH JURIS DICTION BY VIRTUE OF DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT TO ANOTHER AO WHO IS NOT VESTED WITH SUCH JURISDICTION AS PER DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED U/S. 120(1) AND (2) OF THE ACT; THEN BY VIRTUE OF SUCH T RANSFER ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT, THE JURISDICTION OF AN AO U/S. 124 VESTED BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER/DIRECTION VESTED ON AN AO AS PER SEC. 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT IS TAKEN AW AY AND THUS THE ORIGINAL AO IS DIVESTED OF THE JURISDICTION ENJOYED U/S. 124 READ WITH SUB-SEC. (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT CONTENTION P UT FORTH BY THE LD. CIT, DR THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(5) BEING OVERRIDING IN NA TURE, THE ACIT CIRCLE 21(1), NEW DELHI SIMULTANEOUSLY HELD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION I S DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. SUCH INTERPRETATION IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE EXTANT PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 124(5) READ WITH SECTION 127 OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION ONCE AN ORDE R U/S 127(2) WAS PASSED ON 08.10.2008 BY THE LD. CIT-V, DELHI UNCONDITIONALLY TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE TO THE CHARGE OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RANCHI; THEN BY VIRTUE OF SUCH AN ORDER, THE JURISDICTION ENJOYED BY ACIT AT NEW DELHI IN TERMS OF SECTION 124 20 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 READ WITH SECTION 120(1) & (2) STOOD ABROGATED. AC CORDINGLY AFTER 08.10.2008, THE ACIT AT NEW DELHI COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED ANY POWE RS CONFERRED ON THE AO BY THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 19. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE TR ANSFER ORDER PASSED BY THELD. CIT- V, DELHI U/S. 127 DATED 08.10.2008, THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. PURSUANT TO SUCH AN ORDER, THE DC IT, CENTRAL CIRCLE RANCHI BECAME THE AO WHO ALONE HAD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE AP PELLANTS CASE TILL EVEN HE WAS DIVESTED OF SUCH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER PASSED U/S. 127(2)BY THEPR.CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA DATED 03.11.2017 AS PER WHICH THE JU RISDICTION STOOD TRANSFERRED TO THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1) KOLKATA. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE FIRM OPINION THAT IN JUNE 2016 WHEN THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED, IT WAS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RANCHI ALONE ENJOYED SOLE JURISDICTION OVER THE APP ELLANTS CASE AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER IT WAS ONLY THIS AO WHO COULD HAVE ISSUE D A VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR THE RELEVANT AY 2015-16. WE THEREFORE HAVE NO QUARREL W ITH THE PROPOSITION PUT FORTH BY THE LD. CIT, DR THAT WHEN THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA RECEIVED THE CASE RECORDS IN TERMS OF THE ORDER U/S 127(2) DATED 03.1 1.2017, HE HAD NO OBLIGATION TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE U/S 143(2) BECAUSE HE COULD HA VE CONTINUED WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH HIS PREDECESSOR WOULD HAVE LEFT. HOWEVER THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION PRE-SUPPOSES THAT THE ORIGINAL NO TICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY AN OFFICER WHO HELD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HOWEVER FIND THAT ALTHOUGH IN JUNE 2016, THE JURISDICTION OVER T HE ASSESSEES CASE WAS VESTED IN ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RANCHI, HE NEVER ISSUED NOT ICE U/S 143(2). ON THE CONTRARY THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), DE LHI WHO, AS HELD EARLIER, CEASED TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE AFTER 0 8.10.2008. SINCE NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO, RANCHI WITHIN THE STIP ULATED TIME, SUB-SECTION (4) OF SEC. 127 OF THE ACT DOES NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE DEPARTMENT. AS NOTED EARLIER, THE AO, DELHI CEASED TO BE AO OF ASSESSEE AFTER THE TRANSFER ORDER WAS PASSED BY CIT-V, DELHI ON 08.10.2008, SO AFTER SUCH ORDER BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY (WHICH FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US), THEN THE CIT, DELH I BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND BY 21 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 VIRTUE OF IT EVEN HIS SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY I.E. AO , DELHI WAS ALSO DIVESTED OF THE JURISDICTION. FOR THE REASONS AS DISCUSSED IN THE F OREGOING THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANTS CASE W AS NOT SAVED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(5) AS ALSO BY SECTION 127(4) OF THE ACT . ACCORDINGLY, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. CIT, DR ARE REJECTED BEING DEVOID OF ANY ME RIT IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. 20. COMING TO THE NEXT ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT, DR THAT JURISDICTION IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE AND NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OPE N FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN M/S. RAMSHI LA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ( INFRA ) CLEARLY HELD THAT, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT-MATTER HAS TO BE CONFERRED BY LAW. THE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 BY NO OTHER THAN THE CIT KOLKATA- II, KOLKATA HIMSELF. ONCE THAT WAS DONE CIT KOLKATA II, KOLKATA LOST THE SEISIN OVER THE MATT ER. HE BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO . [EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US] THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT, DR THAT THE JU RISDICTION IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE AND NOT A SUBJECT MATTER ST ANDS NEGATED IN THE LIGHT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT'S SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS ( SUPRA). 21. COMING TO THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT, D R THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT QUESTION THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE AO AT DELHI AFTER IT RECEIVED STATUTORY NOTICE FROM HIM AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ESTOP PED/SHUT-OUT FROM DOING SO AS STIPULATED BY SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC. 124 OF THE AC T. WE HOWEVER NOTE THAT SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT WILL COME INTO PLAY O NLY WHEN A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER AN AO HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON U/S. 124 OF THE ACT AND THE AO DERIVES HIS POWERS FROM THE DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSU ED BY CBDT AND/OR AUTHORITIES UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION ARISES IN THE EVENT AN AO ASSUMES JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT BY VIRTUE OF THE JURISDICTION VESTED BY DIRECTI ON OR ORDER ISSUED BY CBDT AND/OR OTHER AUTHORITIES UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR (2) OF S EC. 120 OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY, THEN ASSESSEE IS ESTOPPED FROM RAISING AN OBJECTION TO T HE JURISDICTION, AFTER THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT LAPSES. THIS HOWEVER IS NOT THE FACT OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. ADMITTEDLY THE AO AT DELHI WHO HAD ENJOYED 22 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT BY VIRTUE OF DIREC TION OR ORDER ISSUED BY CBDT AND/OR AUTHORITIES UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT WAS LEGALLY DIVESTED OF HIS JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE BY VI RTUE OF THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT DATED 08.10.2008, AND THEREAFTER AO AT DELHI COULD NOT HAVE SUO MOTO ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION T HEREFORE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 124(3) DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY SINCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LEGALLY TRANSFERRED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY U/S. 127 OF THE ACT AS FAR BACK AS IN 2008. THERE IS A REASON FOR SAYING SO WHEN THE T RANSFER OF AN ASSESSEE'S CASE AS ENVISAGED U/S. 127 OCCURS, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY GIVES REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD [EXCEPT IF THE AO TO WHOM CASE IS TRANS FERRED ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, LOCALITY OR PLACE (SEE SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC TION 127 OF THE ACT)] AND AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THAT IN THE PRESE NT CASE AT HAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BY COMMISSIONER AT DELHI BEFORE HE PROPOSED THE TRANSFER OF ASSESSEE'S CASE TO AO AT RANCHI AND THE ASSESSEE HAD OBJECTED TO THE TRANSFER WHICH IS FOUND AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK . AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE'S OBJECTIONS, THE COMMISSIONER AT DELHI TRANSFERRED T HE CASE OF ASSESSEE FROM AO AT DELHI TO AO AT RANCHI. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEREFO RE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, ONCE TRANSFER OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ORDERED U/S . 127 OF THE ACT, THE AO WHO WAS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIREC TION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 AND SECTION 124 OF T HE ACT STOOD DIVESTED OF THE SAME. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S. RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (INFRA),SINCE THE JURISDICTION WAS DIVESTED OF THE EARLIER AO BY VIRTUE OF TRANSFER ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT, THE EARLIER AO, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS AO AT DELHI (DCIT. CIRCLE -15, NEW DELHI) CEASED TO BE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER I.E. 08.10.2008 AND THEREFORE HE (I.E. AO AT NEW DELHI) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICES UPON THE ASSESSEE UNLESS HE HAD B EEN RE-EMPOWERED OR VESTED BY A FRESH TRANSFER ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT (I.E. FROM AO, RANCHI TO AO, DELHI), WHICH IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEREFORE, THE AO AT DELHI (ACIT, CIRCLE-21 (1), NEW DELHI) COULD NOT HAVE USURPED TH E JURISDICTION WHEN HIS PREDECESSOR I.E. DCIT, CIRCLE-15(1), NEW DELHI WAS DIVESTED OF IT, BY ORDER DATED 23 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 08.10.2008 BY CIT-V, NEW DELHI U/S. 127 OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT I.E., W.E.F. FROM 08.10.2008, THE DC IT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI SUCCEEDED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HE JURISDICTION CONTINUED TO VEST IN HIM (AO RANCHI) TILL IT WAS LEGALLY TAKEN AWAY BY O RDER U/S. 127 DATED 03.11.2017 BY PR. CIT, CENTRAL PATNA AND TRANSFERRED TO ACIT, CEN TRAL CIRCLE-3(L), KOLKATA. THEREFORE, AS PER THE DISCUSSIONS (SUPRA) THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE QUESTIONED THE JURISDICTION OF AO AT DELHI, AS ENVISAGED UNDER SUB-SEC. (3) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT SINCE IN THE FIRST PLACE AO AT DELHI LEGALLY ENJOYED JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE. IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY HELP THE DEPARTMENT TO JUSTIFY THE ACTION OF AO AT NEW DELHI IN ISSUING UNDER SECTION 143(2) TO THE AS SESSEE, WHICH IS AN ACTION WITHOUT JURISDICTION. SO THE CHALLENGE RAISED BY THE LD CIT , DR FAILS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT, DR ON THIS SCORE. 22. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. CIT, DR TOOK PAINS TO CONVINCE US THAT THERE ARE OVERLAPPING/CONCURRENT J URISDICTION IN RESPECT TO THE TERRITORIAL AND PECUNIARY JURISDICTION OF THE AO AN D, THEREFORE, THE AO HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES PRINCI PAL OFFICE AT RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI HAVING ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE A CT WAS EMPOWERED TO DO SO SINCE THE ACIT, CIRCLE-21(1), DELHI ENJOYED THE CONCURREN T JURISDICTION CONFERRED U/S. 120/124 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE ON SUBSEQUENT TRA NSFER OF THE CASE BY THE PR. CIT, CENTRAL PATNA BY ORDER DATED 24.10.2017 TO ACIT, CE NTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, THERE WAS NO NEED TO RE-ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF T HE ACT IN TERMS OF SEC. 127(4) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS HE RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIO NS. WE HOWEVER NOTE THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT, DR WERE FACTUALLY DI STINGUISHABLE. IN THESE DECISIONS THE COURTS WERE CALLED UPON TO EXAMINE THE IMPLICAT IONS ARISING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120 AND 124 OF THE ACT AND THE FACTS OF THESE CASES DID NOT INVOLVE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF WHICH THE AO HOLDING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 124 READ WITH SECTION 120(1) & (2) WAS SPECIFICALLY DIVESTED OF HIS JURISDICTION BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED ON SOME OTHER OFFICER AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDU RE PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 127 OF 24 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 THE ACT. INSTEAD WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. PR. CIT WHEREIN THE FACTUAL MATRIX GOVERNING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION WAS SIMILAR. IN THAT CASE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER WHO USURPED THE REVISIONAL JURISDI CTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT COULD HAVE VALIDLY DONE SO, ONCE HE HIMSELF HAD PASSEDAN ORDER U/S 127 OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF WHICH ASSESSEES CASE STOOD TRANSFERRED. THE FA CTS OF THE SAID CASE M/S. RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. PR. CIT CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:- SL. NO. DATE EVENTS 1. 21 ST MAY, 2010 ASSESSMENT U/S. 147/143(3) BY ITO, WD- 4(1), KOLKATA (FOR AY 2008-09). 2. 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 CIT, KOLKATA-II TRANSFERRED THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE TO ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIX, KOLKATA FOR BETTER CO- ORDINATION, EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT, CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 17 TH NOVEMBER 2011 UPON M/S. ATHA MINES (AY 2012-13). 3. 18 TH MARCH, 2013 ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIX, KOLKATA ISSUED SEC. 143(2) NOTICE TO ASSESSEE 4. 29 TH JULY, 2013 ACTUAL TRANSFER OF FILES TOOK PLACE FROM ITO, WD-4(1), KOLKATA TO ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIX, KOLKATA. 5. 18 TH MARCH, 2013 NOTICE U/S. 263 ISSUED BY CIT, KOLKATA-II PROPOSING TO INTERFERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ITO, WD-4(1), KOLKATA DATED 21 ST MAY, 2010 (AY 2008-09). 6. 26 TH MARCH, 2013 CIT-II, KOLKATA PASSED THE ORDER U/S. 263 SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ITO, WAD-4(1) DATED 21 ST MAY, 2010 FOR AY 2008-09. 23. THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT-II, KOLKATA WAS CHAL LENGED BY THE ASSESSEE [M/S RAMSHILA,]OBJECTING TO THE JURISDICTION OF CIT-II, KOLKATA WHO HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 263 AND THEREAFTER PASSED ORDER U/S. 26 3 DATED 26 TH MARCH, 2013 FOR AY 2008- 09. THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID REVISION ORDER WAS UPH ELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE DEFINITION OF CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC.1 27 OF THE ACT AS GIVEN IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SEC.127 DOES NOT DEBAR THE COMMISSIONER FROM TRANSFERRING ONLY A PARTICULAR CASE, MORE SO WHEN THE REQUEST FOR TRANSFER WAS MADE IN S PECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS PROPER CO- 25 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 ORDINATION OF SEARCH CASES.THE COMMISSIONER TRANSFE RRING JURISDICTION HAS POWER TO TRANSFER ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT, WHICH ARE PENDING, C OMPLETED OR WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE POWERS TO RESTRICT HIS ORDER OF TRANSFER ONLY TO A PARTICULAR CASE FOR WHI CH REQUEST WAS MADE, THEREBY, LEAVING THE JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OTHER CASES PERTAINING T O AN ASSESSEE TO BE EXERCISED BY THE AO/CIT WHO ALREADY HAD IT.THE POWER TO DO A PARTICULAR ACT ALSO INCLUDES A POWER TO RESTRICT THE EXERCISE OF POWER PARTLY.IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE POWER SHOULD BE EXERCISED EITHER AS A WHOLE OR NOT AT ALL.SUCH AN ARGUMENT IS FALLACIOUS AND DE FEATS THE VERY PURPOSE OF CONFERRING A LARGER POWER.AS THE ACTUAL TRANSFER OF THE FILES FR OM THE INCUMBENT AO TO THE NEW AO HAD TAKEN PLACE ONLY ON 29.7.2013 AND FURTHER THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED BY THE LD.CIT U/S 263 WAS PASSED MUCH PRIOR TO THE EVEN MAKING OF REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF SEARCH MATTERS, WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT IN OUR MIND THAT ONLY THE CIT KOLKATA II, KOLKATA HAD THE JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S147 AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE.THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR IN THIS REGAR D IS HELD TO BE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE AND NOT UNACCEPTABLE. 24. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L, THE ASSESSEE M/S.RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW RAIS ING THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE SIMILAR TO THAT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WAS FRAMED A S UNDER:- WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THA T THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 18TH MARCH, 2013 AND PASSING OF THE ORDER ON 26TH M ARCH, 2013 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN SPITE OF TRANSFER OF JURISD ICTION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLKATA VIDE AN ORDER DATED 3RD SEP TEMBER, 2012 UNDER SECTION 127 (2)(A) OF THE SAID ACT AND ITS PURPORTED FINDINGS IN THAT BEH ALF ARE ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND PERVERSE?. 25. IN THIS CASE WHICH IS REPORTED AS M/S.RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. PR. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 546 (CAL), WE NOTE THAT THE GIST OF DEPARTMENTS CONTENTION WAS TAKEN NOTE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WHICH IS AS UNDER: MR. GHOSAL, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER ORDER ITSELF INDICATES THAT JURISDICTION OF THE INC OME-TAX OFFICER, WD-4(1), KOLKATA WAS TRANSFERRED TO ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIX, KOLKA TA, WHICH IS AT PAGE 584. THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX REMAINED UNCHANGED. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT, WHICH WAS CHAN GED. THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY REMAINED UNCHANGED. THEREFORE, THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE WAS VALIDLY PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. 26. PER CONTRA; IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT AS PER THE EXPLANATION APPENDED TO SECTION 127 OF THE ACT THAT THE EXPRESSION TRAN SFER OF A CASE WOULD MEAN ALL PENDING 26 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 AND FUTURE PROCEEDINGS AND IN THAT CASE IT WAS POIN TED OUT THAT TRIBUNAL ALSO AGREED THAT ONLY CIT, CENTRAL, KOLKATA HAD JURISDICTION OVER TH E PENDING CASES AS WELL AS FUTURE CASES.THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS UNDER: MR.PODDAR, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE, DREW OUR ATTEN TION TO AN ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 APPEARING AT PAGE 584 OF THE ADDITIONAL PAPERS FILED BY HIM, WHICH IS AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY NO OTHER THAN THE CIT, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA, WHO PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263, TRANSF ERRING THE JURISDICTION OVER FIVE ASSESSEES INCLUDING THE APPELLANT BEFORE US TO THE ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE XIX, KOLKATA IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR BETTER COORDINATION, EFFECT IVE INVESTIGATION AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 17TH NOVEMBER, 2011 AGAINST THE BUSINESS CONCERN OF ATHA MINES. MR.PODDAR CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS NOT IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ATHA MINES GROUP. BUT THE POINT OF SUBSTANCE I S THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 WAS PASSED BY THE CIT, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA IN S PITE OF THE FACT THAT THE JURISDICTION HAD ALREADY BEEN TRANSFERRED BY HIS PREDECESSOR-IN-OFFI CE BY HIS ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. MR.PODDER CONTENDED THAT CIT , KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA THEREAFTER HAD NO LONGER ANY JURISDICTION LEFT WITH HIM TO BE EXERCIS ED IN RESPECT OF THE RETURN OR RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OR ASSESSMENTS MADE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXERCISE OF POWER WAS NOT ONLY EX PARTE, WITHOUT NOTICE, BUT WAS ALSO WITHOUT JURISDI CTION. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 18TH MARCH, 2013 RECEIVED BY HIS CLIENT FROM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WHICH IS A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) PERTAINING T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION TO A ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIX, KOLKATA HAD ALREADY BECOME OPER ATIVE AND WAS ALSO ACTED UPON.THEREFORE, CIT, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED JURISDICTION.THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY HIM IS ALTOGETHER WITHOUT JURISDICT ION AND IS, THEREFORE, A NULLITY. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO A JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF PANDURANG AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REPORTED IN (1986) 4 SC C436FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN A RIGHT ORDER BY A WRONG FORUM IS A NULLITY.IN THE AFORESAI D JUDGMENT THEIR LORDSHIP HELD AS FOLLOWS: 4.WHEN A MATTER REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED BY A DIVISI ON BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IS DECIDED BY A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, THE JUDGMENT WOU LD BE A NULLITY, THE MATTER HAVING BEEN HEARD BY A COURT WHICH HAD NO COMPETENCE TO HE AR THE MATTER, IT BEING A MATTER OF TOTAL LACK OF JURISDICTION.THE ACCUSED WAS ENTIT LED TO BE HEARD BY AT LEAST TWO LEARNED JUDGES CONSTITUTING A DIVISION BENCH AND HA D A RIGHT TO CLAIM A VERDICT AS REGARDS HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE AT THE HANDS OF THE TWO LEARNED JUDGES.THIS RIGHT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY EXCEPT BY AMENDING THE RULES.S O LONG AS THE RULES ARE IN OPERATION IT WOULD BE ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY TO DENY HIM THIS RIGHT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS DONE BY REASON OF NEGLIGENCE OR OT HERWISE.DELIBERATELY, IT CANNOT BE DONE.NEGLIGENCE CAN NEITHER BE INVOKED AS AN ALIBI, NOR CAN CURE THE INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY, SO AS TO ROB THE ACCUSED OF HIS RIGHT U NDER THE RULES.WHAT CAN BE DONE ONLY BY AT LEAST TWO LEARNED JUDGES CANNOT BE DONE BY ON E LEARNED JUDGE.EVEN IF THE DECISION IS RIGHT ON MERITS, IT IS BY A FORUM WHICH IS LACKING IN COMPETENCE WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT MATTER.EVEN A RIGHT DECISIO N BY A WRONG FORUM IS NO DECISION.IT IS NON-EXISTENT IN THE EYE OF LAW.AND H ENCE A NULLITY.THE JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL IS THEREFORE NO JUDGMENT IN THE EYE OF LAW.T HIS COURT IN STATE OF MADHYA PRADSH V. DEWADAS (1982) 1 SCC 552 HAS TAKEN A VIEW WHICH REINFORCES OUR VIEW.WE, THEREFORE, ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AND SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE HIGH COURT FOR BEIN G PLACED BEFORE A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT, WHICH WILL AFFORD REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE SIDES AND DISPOSE IT OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, EXP EDITIOUSLY. 27 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 HE ALSO RELIED UPON A DIVISION BENCH JUDGEMENT OF T HIS COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS/. ASHOKE GLASS WORKS REPORTED IN (1980) 125 ITR491(CAL) WHER EIN THE FOLLOWING VIEW WAS EXPRESSED (PAGE 505): SO WHEN THE JURISDICTION IS VALIDLY REMOVED BY A C OMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE, THE ORIGINAL COURT OR ANY TRIBUNAL OR AUTHORITY IN SUCH EVENT WILL BE INCOMPETENT, AS HAVING CEASED TO HAVE JURIS DICTION, TO PROCEED FURTHER WITH THE PENDING PROCEEDING OR PROCEEDING WHICH MAY BE INSTI TUTED AFTER SUCH REMOVAL OF JURISDICTION. 27. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS N OT NECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER HAD JURISDICTION TO RESTRICT THE ORDER OF TRANSFER, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE ORDER OF TRANSFER IN THIS CASE WAS NOT A RESTRICTED ONE. READING THE ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 AS A WHOLE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ANY RESTRI CTED TRANSFER WAS SOUGHT TO BE MADE FOR ANY PARTICULAR YEAR OR YEARS OR OTHERWISE. THE ORDER OF TRANSFER, AS WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, WAS PASSED IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR BETTER CO ORDINATION, EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATIVE AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT. THE ACTUAL TRANSFER OF FILES MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE O N 29TH JULY, 2013 BUT ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) BY T HE TRANSFEREE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ISSUED ON 18TH MARCH, 2013. THE EXISTENCE OF FILES DOES NOT C ONFER THE JURISDICTION WHEN THE SAME HAS VALIDLY BEEN TRANSFERRED AND ALSO ACTED UPON. THE J URISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT-MATTER HAS TO BE CONFERRED BY LAW. THE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 BY NO OTHER THAN THE CIT KOLKATA- I I, KOLKATA HIMSELF. ONCE THAT WAS DONE CIT KOLKATA II, KOLKATA LOST THE SEISIN OVER THE MATTER. HE BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO THE STROUD S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES, 7TH EDITION, PAGE 1085 WHEREIN THE FOL LOWING MEANING HAS BEEN EXPRESSED: FUNCTUS OFFICIO. AN ARBITRATOR OR REFEREE CANNOT B E SAID TO BE FUNCTUS OFFICIO WHEN HE HAS GIVEN A DECISION WHICH IS HELD TO BE NO DECISIO N AT ALL (DAVIES V HOWE SPINNING CO LTD.27 B.W.C.C.207). WHERE A JUDGE HAS MADE AN ORDER FOR A STAY OF EXECU TION WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED AND ENTERED, HE IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO, AND NEITHER HE NOR ANY OTHER JUDGE OF EQUAL JURISDICTION HAS JURISDICTION TO VARY THE TERMS OF SUCH STAY (RE V.G.M.HOLDING LT D [1941].3 ALL E.R.417). AN ARBITRATOR OR UMPIRE WHO HAS MADE HIS AWARD IS F UNCTUS OFFICIO, AND COULD NOT BY COMMON LAW ALTER IT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER; HE COULD NOT EV EN CORRECT AN OBVIOUS CLERICAL MISTAKE. SEE MORDUE V PALMER, 6 CH. APP.22; HENFREE V BROMLEY, 6 EAST, 309; BROOKE V MITCHELL, 6 M.& W.473. SEE NOW ARBITRATION ACT 1950 (C.27).S.17. REFERENCE MAY ALSO BE MADE TO THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF RE V.G.M.HOLDINGS, LTD. 1941 (3) ALL ENGLAND LAW REPORTS, 417 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING VIEWS WERE EXPRESSED: I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A STRANGE POSITION IF A J UDGE WERE AT LIBERTY TO RECONSIDER HIS DECISION AND GRANT A STAY OF EXECUTION AFTER HE HA D MADE AN ORDER REFUSING IT. I THINK THAT, WHEN A JUDGE HAS MADE AN ORDER SUCH AS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE RESPONDENT, IF HE IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDE R, IS TO GO TO THE COURT OF APPEAL A SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF KOMAL CHAND VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, REPORTED IN AIR 1966 MADHYA PRADESH 20 OPINED IN TH IS REGARD AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 35 OF THE STAMP ACT, INTER ALIA, SAYS THAT NO INSTRUMENT CHARGEABLE WITH DUTY SHALL BE REGISTERED BY ANY PUBLIC OFFICER UNLESS SUCH INSTRU MENT IS DULY STAMPED. THIS PROVISION THUS 28 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 CASTS A DUTY ON THE REGISTERING OFFICER TO EXAMINE WHETHER AN INSTRUMENT PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION IS DULY STAMPED. IF, AS SECTION 36 SAY S, AN INSTRUMENT CHARGEABLE WITH DUTY SHALL NOT BE REGISTERED UNLESS SUCH INSTRUMENT IS DULY ST AMPED, THEN IT FOLLOWS THAT THE REGISTERING OFFICER MUST PERFORM THE DUTY OF SEEING WHETHER AN INSTRUMENT PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION IS OR IS NOT DULY STAMPED BEFORE ADMITTING IT TO REGISTRA TION AND NOT AFTERWARDS. IF HE FINDS THAT THE DOCUMENT IS NOT DULY STAMPED, THEN HE MUST IMPOUND IT UNDER SECTION 33 OF THE ACT. NEITHER IN THE REGISTRATION ACT NOR IN THE STAMP ACT IS THERE ANY PROVISION GIVING TO THE REGISTERING OFFICER ANY POWER TO EXAMINE WHETHER AN INSTRUMENT ALREADY REGISTERED WAS OR WAS NOT DULY STAMPED AND TO IMPOUND IT. AS SOON AS THE REGISTERI NG OFFICER REGISTERS A DOCUMENT PRESENTED TO HIM FOR REGISTRATION, THE FUNCTION IN THE PERFOR MANCE OF WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM IS OVER AND THEREAFTER BECOMES FUNCTUS O FFICIO HAVING NO POWER UNDER SECTION 33 TO IMPOUND THE INSTRUMENT. THE MATTER IS REALLY CONCLUDED BY THE DECISION OF T HE SUPREME COURT IN GOVT. OF UTTAR PRADESH V. MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD KHAN, AIR1961SC787 THAT WAS A CASE WHERE THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER THE COLLECTOR HAS ANY POWER TO IMPOUND AN I NSTRUMENT SENT TO HIM FOR ADJUDICATION UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE STAMP ACT. THE SUPREME COUR T HELD THAT UNDER THAT SECTION THE COLLECTOR HAD NO SUCH POWER, AS THE PROVISION GAVE HIM THE POWER ONLY TO GIVE HIS OPINION AS REGARDS THE DUTY WITH WHICH IN HIS JUDGMENT THE INS TRUMENT WAS CHARGEABLE AND WHEN THAT FUNCTION WAS PERFORMED BY THE COLLECTOR HE BECAME F UNCTUS OFFICIO. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE POWER TO IMPOUND ONLY EXISTS WHEN AN INSTRUMENT IS PRODUCED BEFORE JUDICIAL OFFICERS OR OTHER OFFICERS PERFORMING JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AS EVIDENCE OF ANY FACT TO BE PROVED, OR BEFORE OTH ER PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO HAVE TO PERFORM ANY FUNCTION IN REGARD TO THOSE INSTRUMENTS AS, FOR EXA MPLE, REGISTRATION. THE SUPREME COURT ALSO APPROVED THE DECISIONS IN COLLECTOR, AHMEDNAGAR V. RAMBHAU, AIR 1930 BOM 392 (FB). PAIKU V. GAYA, ILR (1948) NAG 950 : (AIR1949NAG 214 ) AND PANAKALA RAO V. KUMARASWAMI, AIR 1937MAD 763 WHERE THE DOCTRINE OF FUNCTUS OFFIC IO WAS APPLIED AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE COURT HAD NO POWER TO RECALL AND IMPOUND A CERTIFIC ATE OF SALE AFTER EXECUTING IT AND DELIVERING IT TO THE PURCHASER, OR TO REOPEN A CASE AND IMPOUND DOCUMENTS PROVED AFTER SIGNING THE DECREE, OR TO IMPOUND AN INSTRUMENT ADM ITTED IN EVIDENCE AFTER DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT.HERE, WHEN THE SUB- IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SUB-REGISTRAR PURPORTED TO ACT UNDER PARAGRAPH 232 OF THE REGISTRATION MANUAL WHEN HE MADE A REPORT TO THE CO LLECTOR THAT THE TAKSEEMNAMA WAS NOT DULY STAMPED.BUT ON READING PARAGRAPHS 231 AND 232 IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY DO NOT SAY THAT AFTER A DOCUMENT IS ADMITTED TO REGISTRATION, THE REGISTE RING OFFICER CAN MAKE A REPORT TO THE COLLECTOR THAT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY STAMPED ON T HE OTHER HAND, PARAGRAPH 231 EXPRESSLY LAYS DOWN A DIRECTION THAT BEFORE TAKING ANY FURTHER ACT ION, THAT IS TO SAY, IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRATION, THE REGISTERING OFFICER MUST SEE THAT THE DOCUMENT IS DULY STAMPED.THE WORDS AFTER REGISTERING THE DOCUMENT OCCURRING IN PARAG RAPH 232 OBVIOUSLY REFER TO THE ENTRY OF THE DOCUMENT IN THE REGISTER MAINTAINED OF DOCUMENT S PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION.THEY DO NOT MEAN THAT THE REGISTERING OFFICER CAN MAKE A REPORT ABOUT INSUFFICIENCY OF STAMP AFTER THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN ADMITTED TO REGISTRATION. IN THE CASE OF SBI VERSUS S.N.GOYAL REPORTED IN 2 009 (8) SCC92THE FOLLOWING VIEWS WERE EXPRESSED: IT IS TRUE THAT ONCE AN AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI -JUDICIAL POWER TAKES A FINAL DECISION, IT CANNOT REVIEW ITS DECISION UNLESS THE RELEVANT STAT UTE OR RULES PERMIT SUCH REVIEW.BUT THE QUESTION IS AS TO AT WHAT STAGE AN AUTHORITY BECOME S FUNCTUS OFFICIO IN REGARD TO AN ORDER MADE BY HIM.P.RAMANATHA AIYAR'S ADVANCED LAW LEXICO .(3RD EDN., VOL.2, PP.1946-47) GIVES THE FOLLOWING ILLUSTRATIVE DEFINITION OF THE TERM FUNCTUS OFFICIO: 29 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 THUS A JUDGE, WHEN HE HAS DECIDED A QUESTION BROUGH T BEFORE HIM, IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO, AND CANNOT REVIEW HIS OWN DECISION. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (6TH EDN., P.673) GIVES ITS MEANING AS FOLLOWS: HAVING FULFILLED THE FUNCTION, DISCHARGED THE OFFI CE, OR ACCOMPLISHED THE PURPOSE, AND THEREFORE OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR AUTHORITY. WE MAY FIRST REFER TO THE POSITION WITH REFERENCE T O CIVIL COURTS.ORDER 20 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DEALS WITH JUDGMENT AND DECREE.RULE 1 EXP LAINS WHEN A JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED.SUB-RULE (1) PROVIDES THAT THE COURT, AF TER THE CASE HAS BEEN HEARD, SHALL PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT IN AN OPEN COURT EITHER AT ONCE, OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS MAY BE PRACTICABLE, AND WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS TO BE PRONOUN CED ON SOME FUTURE DAY, THE COURT SHALL FIX A DAY FOR THAT PURPOSE OF WHICH DUE NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PARTIES OR THEIR PLEADERS.SUB- RULE (3) PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNC ED BY DICTATION IN AN OPEN COURT TO A SHORTHAND WRITER [IF THE JUDGE IS SPECIALLY EMPOWER ED (SIC BY THE HIGH COURT) IN THIS BEHALF].THE PROVISO THERETO PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED BY DICTATION IN OPEN COURT, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT SO PRONO UNCED SHALL, AFTER MAKING SUCH CORRECTIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY, BE SIGNED BY THE JUDGE, BEAR T HE DATE ON WHICH IT WAS PRONOUNCED AND FORM A PART OF THE RECORD.RULE 3 PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGMENT SHALL BE DATED AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE IN OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF PRONOUNCING IT A ND WHEN ONCE SIGNED, SHALL NOT AFTERWARDS BE ALTERED OR ADDED TO SAVE AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 152 OR ON REVIEW.THUS, WHERE A JUDGMENT IS RESERVED, MERE DICTATION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO PRON OUNCEMENT, BUT WHERE THE JUDGMENT IS DICTATED IN OPEN COURT, THAT ITSELF AMOUNTS TO PRON OUNCEMENT.BUT EVEN AFTER SUCH PRONOUNCEMENT BY OPEN COURT DICTATION, THE JUDGE CA N MAKE CORRECTIONS BEFORE SIGNING AND DATING THE JUDGMENT.THEREFORE, A JUDGE BECOMES FUNC TUS OFFICIO WHEN HE PRONOUNCES, SIGNS AND DATES THE JUDGMENT (SUBJECT TO SECTION 152 AND POWER OF REVIEW).THE POSITION IS DIFFERENT WITH REFERENCE TO QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES.WHILE SOME QUASI-JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS FIX A DAY FOR PRONOUNCEMENT AND PRONOUNCE THEIR ORDERS ON THE DAY FIXED, MANY QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES DO NOT PRONOUNCE THEIR ORDERS.SOME PUBLISH OR NOTIF Y THEIR ORDERS.SOME PREPARE AND SIGN THE ORDERS AND COMMUNICATE THE SAME TO THE PARTY CONCER NED.A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WILL BECOME FUNCTUS OFFICIO ONLY WHEN ITS ORDER IS PRONO UNCED, OR PUBLISHED/NOTIFIED OR COMMUNICATED (PUT IN THE COURSE OF TRANSMISSION) TO THE PARTY CONCERNED.WHEN AN ORDER IS MADE IN AN OFFICE NOTING IN A FILE BUT IS NOT PRONO UNCED, PUBLISHED OR COMMUNICATED, NOTHING PREVENTS THE AUTHORITY FROM CORRECTING IT OR ALTERI NG IT FOR VALID REASONS.BUT ONCE THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED OR PUBLISHED OR NOTIFIED OR COMMUNICATED , THE AUTHORITY WILL BECOME FUNCTUS OFFICIO.THE ORDER DATED 18-1-1995 MADE ON AN OFFICE NOTE, WAS NEITHER PRONOUNCED, NOR PUBLISHED/NOTIFIED NOR COMMUNICATED.THEREFORE, IT C ANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO WHEN IT SIGNED THE NOTE DATED 18-1-1995. APPLYING THE LAW LAID DOWN IN S.N.GOYALS (SUPRA) CASE WE ARE REINFORCED, IN OUR OPINION THAT THE CIT KOLKATA II, KOLKATA HAD BECOME FUNCTUS OF FICIO PRIOR TO 18TH MARCH, 2013 BECAUSE THE TRANSFEREE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASSUMED JURI SDICTION WITHOUT WHICH THE NOTICE DATED 18TH MARCH, 2013 UNDER SECTION 143(2) COULD NOT HAV E BEEN ISSUED.THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF TRANSFER WAS DULY PUBLISHED/ NOTIFIED AND/OR COMMUN ICATED AND THEREAFTER ACTED UPON BY THE TRANSFEREE-ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ARE, AS SUCH OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE DATED 18TH MARCH, 2013 UNDER SECTION 263 AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDER DATED 26TH MAR CH, 2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WERE ACTS WITHOUT JURISDICTION A ND THEREFORE A NULLITY. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS THE QUESTION NO.(A) IS AN SWERED IN THE NEGATIVE. THE POINT IS, THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E.THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US) 30 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 28. FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT AT CALCUTTA, WE UNDERSTAND THAT IN THIS CASE AFTER THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT DA TED 03.09.2012 WAS PASSED BY THE CIT-2, KOLKATA, HE BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND THEREFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THEREFORE HE ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER DATED 26.03 2013 U/S 263 SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITO, WARD-4(1), KOLKATA DATED 21.05.2010. 29. COMING BACK TO THE CASE IN HAND, AND HAVING TAK EN NOTE OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE NOTE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, AFTER THE ORDER OF THE CIT-V, NEW DELHI DATED 08.10.2008 TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEES CASE TO DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RANCHI, THE CIT, DELHI BEC AME FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND THEREBY HIS SUBORDINATE OFFICERS VIZ., ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), NEW DELHI, COULD NOT HAVE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) DATED 28.07.2016 AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MAT TER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE-21(1), NEW DELHI U/S 143(2)WAS WITHOUT JURIS DICTION AND, THEREFORE, NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. 30. OUR ABOVE FINDING ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE D ECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHANKYA FINVEST PVT LTD VS ITO (34 TAXMANN.COM 206) . IN THAT CASE THE CIT DELHI HAD PASSED AN ORDER U/S 127 DATED 04.01.2010 TRANSFERRI NG JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE FROM ITO, DELHI TO ITO KOLKATA. AFTER THE ORDER U/S 127 WAS PASSED ON 04.01.2010, THE ITO AT DELHI INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER R ECORDING REASONS AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 25.03.2010 FOR AY 2003-04. THEREAFTER, WITHO UT THEIR BEING FRESH ORDER U/S 124/ 127; THE ITO, DELHI TRANSFERRED THE CASE RECORDS PERTAIN ING TO REASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2003-04 TO THE CHARGE OF ITO, KOLKATA. TAKING RECOURSE TO PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 124(5), ITO KOLKATA CONTINUED WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM TH E STAGE AT WHICH THE CASE RECORDS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM DELHI AND THEREAFTER PASSED THE OR DER U/S 147/143(3).BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENT ORDER U/S 143(3)/147 ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY AN OFFICER WHO DID NOT HOLD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE TRIBUNAL UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION, OBSERVED AS UNDER: 31 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT DELHI IN THE OFFICE OF IT O, WARD-3(3) DELHI ON 02-12-2003. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 25-03-2010 WITH THE PERMISSION OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, NEW DELH I. BUT, IN THE MEANTIME, CIT-1, DELHI PASSED AN ORDER U/S. 127(2) TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION OF THIS CASE VIDE ITS ORDER NO.CIT-1/CENT/09-10/1874 DATED 04-01-2010 FROM ITO, WARD-3(3), NEW DELHI TO ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE CIT(A) THAT ITO, WA RD-3(3), NEW DELHI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 25-03-2010 AS T HE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED U/S. 127(2) OF THE ACT FROM NEW DELHI TO KOLKATA ON 04-01-2010. THE ASSESSEE BE FORE CIT(A) FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER: 'THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE I. T. ACT 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING BY THE ITO WARD 3(3) DELHI . THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO DELHI AFTER RECEIPT OF APPROVAL F ROM ADDITIONAL CIT DELHI ON 25-03-2010. HOWEVER THE CIT DELHI HAD PASSED AN ORDER U/S. 127 TRANSFERRING THE FILE TO KOLKATA ON 4-1-2010 AS SUCH ON 25-3-2010 THE AO IN DELHI DID NOT HAVE JURI SDICTION OVER THE CASE, HENCE THE REOPENING IT WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS IT IS BASED ON THE NOTICE U /S. 148 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 ISSUED BY THE ITO DE LHI. WE HAVE REQUESTED THE AO AT KOLKATA TO ISSUE THE CO PY OF THE ORDER OF 127 AND 151 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED YET. WE THEREFORE REQUEST YOU TO EITHER, CALL FOR THE RE CORDS AND ADJUDICATE THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OR GRANT AN ADJOURNMENT OF 15 DAYS TO OBTAIN CERTIFIED COPIES OF ALL RELATED RECORDS SO THAT WE CAN REPRESENT THE MATTER PROPERLY.' THE CIT(A) SENT THIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO ITO, WAR D-6(1), KOLKATA VIDE LETTER NO. CIT(A)- VI/KOL/REMAND/2011-12/368 DATED 20-02-2010 AND THE AO SENT ITS REMAND REPORT VIDE LETTER NO. WD- 6(1)/KOL/CHANAKYAFINVEST/11-12/826 DATED 23-04-2010 , WHICH IS AS UNDER: 'KINDLY REFER TO YOUR LETTER NO. CIT(A)-VI/KOL/REMA ND REPORT/2011-12/368 DATED 20.02.2012. IN THIS CONNECTION FOLLOWING INFORMATION AS AVAILAB LE FROM THE RECORD ARE CHRONOLOGICALLY APPENDED BELOW: DATE HAPPENING 1. 04-01-10 ORDER U/S L27 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, DELHI-I, NEW DELHI. 2. 23-03-10 PROPOSAL TO RE-OPEN THE CASE WAS SENT TO LD. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3 DELHI. 3. 25-03-10 DELHI. LD. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, ACCORDED THE APPROVAL FOR RE-OPEN THE CASE. 4. 25-03-10 NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED AND SERVED BY ITO, WARD-3(3), NEW DELHI. 5. 30-11-10 RECORD RECEIVED BY THE UNDER SIGNED FROM ITO, WARD-3(3), NEW DELHI. 6. 03-12-10 THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 VIDE PETITION DATED 03.12.10. 7. 03-12-10 NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) BOTH WERE ISSUED AND SERVED. 8. 29-12-10 ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 147/144 AS THERE WERE NON-COMPLIANCE 32 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 THOUGH THE ORDER U/S 127 WAS PASSED BY LD. CIT, DEL HI-I, ON 04-01-10, BUT TILL THE TIME THE RECORDS ARE NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE TRANSFEREE AO, THE JURIS DICTION LIES WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THE CHARGE OVER THE CASE AND ALL ACTION AS PER THE LAW IS REQUIRED TO BE INITIATED OR TAKEN BY THAT JURISDICTIONAL AO ONLY. HENCE THE JURISDICTIONAL AO AT DELHI HAS RIGHTLY RE-OPENED THE CASE ON APPROVAL FROM HIGHER AUTHORITY AND ISSUED NOTICE U/ S 148. ON RECEIVING THE RECORDS ON 30-11-10 THE UNDERSIGNE D DISPOSED OFF THE CASE U/S. 147/144 AS PER THE LAW AFTER OFFERING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEIN G HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE.' DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON 16-02-2010, CIT (A) RECORDED FOLLOWING ORDER SHEET ENTRY: 'MR. MIRAJ D. SHAH, ADVOCATE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDIN GS & FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF ONE PAPER ALONG WITH THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED, ORDER SHEET OF 1 47 PROCEEDINGS GIVEN. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT FILE WAS TRANSFERRED TO KOLKATA ON 4-1-10 BY O RDER U/S 127. COPIES OF ORDER U/S 127 AND SECTION 151 APPROVED BY ADDL. CIT TO BE SUBMITTED TOMORROW. THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF DELHI A.O. WAS NOT TAK EN BEFORE THE A.O. WHO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. ADJ. TO 20-2-12.' 4.CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND OBSERVED IN PARAS 8 AND 9 AS UNDER: '8. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS THAT HE DOES NOT SUBMIT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS EITH ER BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THESE ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH APPELLAN T. THE APPELLANT HAS NEVER TAKEN OBJECTION REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/ S 148 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF NEW DELHI OR INITIATION/CONTINUATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS B Y THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN WHEN THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON 08-12-20 10 AND 16-12-2010. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ASKED FOR THE EXTENSION OF TIME FROM ASSESSING OFFICER ON 20-12-2010 BUT DID NOT FILE ANY OBJECTION REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 29 -12-2010. 9. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD (1) HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE CASE RECORDS WERE NOT TRANSFERRED TO HIM AND WAS STILL LYING WITH ITO WARD 3(3), NEW DELHI O N THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TRANSFER OF CASE RECORDS, THE JURISD ICTION IS NOT TRANSFERRED AUTOMATICALLY SINCE THE I TO WARD 6(1), KOLKATA DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE ORDER PAS SED U/S 127 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 1, NEW DELHI.' AND FURTHER, HE DECIDED THE ISSUE BY DISMISSING THE ASSESSEE'S ISSUE OF REOPENING U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, VIDE GROUND NOS. 17 TO 20 AS UNDER: '17. THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER QUESTIONED THE JURISDIC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SECTION 124(3) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE CHALLENGED AFTER TH E EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143(2)/148. TH E HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN TRANSPORT CO. V. IAC [1991] 189 ITR 326 ( ALL.)HAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS A TIME-LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT TO WHICH THE PLEA OF THE JURI SDICTION MAY BE RAISED, IT CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED AT [1991] 188 ITR (ST.) 84. THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. V. CIT [1992] 19 3 ITR 457 (CAL.) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD NOT RAISED THE OBJECTION AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE CASE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR WITHIN THE 33 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AS IS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 124, THE SAME COULD NOT BE CHALLENGED SUBSEQUENTLY. 18. THE ORDER U/S 127 WAS PASSED BY LD. CIT, DELHI- L, ON 04-01-10, BUT BEFORE THE TIME THE RECORDS WERE NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE TRANSFEREE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE JURISDICTION LIES WITH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HOLDING THE CHARGE OVER THE CASE AND ALL ACTION AS PER THE LAW IS REQUIRED TO BE INITIATED OR TAKEN BY THAT JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY AS PER T HE SUBMISSIONS OF CURRENT ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA AND HE FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AT DELHI HAS RIGHTLY RE-OPENED THE CASE AFT ER DUE APPROVAL FROM HIS JURISDICTIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 14 8 BEFORE ACTUALLY TRANSFERRING THE CASE. 19. THE APPELLANT NEVER RAISED THE QUESTION OF JURI SDICTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER AT NEW DELHI WHEN THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED OR AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT KOLKATA. THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER AT NEW DELHI TO GET THE RECORDS TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO KOLKATA AND A FRESH NOTICE MAY HAVE BEEN ISSUED DURING THE TIME-LIMITATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT KOLKATA. 20. FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN AND UPHELD BY THE H ON'BLE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE LEGAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3) ON THIS ISSU E AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I T IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147/144 O F THE I.T. ACT 1961 IS NOT WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS AS PER LAW AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HELD TO BE A VALID ORDER. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE I T ACT 1961 IS UPHEL D TO BE VALID IN ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTION BEING RAISE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUING THE NOTICE U /S 148 AND/OR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT IS ALSO HELD THAT APPELLANT WAS GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY AFTER SERVIN G THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND DURING ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THESE THREE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL ARE DISMISSED.' AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT WHAT IS THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVE NTS, AS RECORDED BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT GIVEN, DURING COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E CIT(A). THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS IS AS UNDER: DATE HAPPENING 1. 04-01-10 ORDER U/S L27 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, DELHI-I, NEW D ELHI. 2. 23-03-10 PROPOSAL TO RE-OPEN THE CASE WAS SENT TO LD. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, DELHI. 3. 25-03-10 LD. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, ACCORDED THE APPROVAL FOR R E-OPEN THE CASE. 4. 25-03-10 NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED AND SERVED BY ITO, WARD-3(3), NEW DELHI. 5. 30-11-10 RECORD RECEIVED BY THE UNDER SIGNED FROM ITO, WARD- 3(3), NEW DELHI. 6. 03-12-10 THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 VIDE PE TITION DATED 03-12-10. 7. 03-12-10 NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) BOTH WERE ISSUED AND S ERVED. 8. 29-12-10 ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 147/144 AS THERE WERE NON- COMPLIANCE 6. WE FIND THAT THE AO IN HIS REMAND PROCEEDINGS NO TED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED BY CIT, DEL-1 ON 04-01-2010, REASONS WERE RE CORDED FOR REOPENING ON 23-03-2010 FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 25-03-201 0 BECAUSE TILL THE TIME THE RECORDS ARE NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE TRANSFEREE AO, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE JURISDICTION LIES WITH THE AO HOLDING THE CHARGE OVER THE CASE AND ALL ACTION AS PER LAW ARE REQUIRED TO BE INITIATED OR TAKEN BY THAT JURISDICT ION AO ONLY. EVEN THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NEVER OBJECTED REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT BY THE AO OF NEW DELHI OR INITIATION/CONTINUATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA BEFORE T HE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHETHER SUCH A PLEA CAN BE ACCEPTED OR NOT? BEFORE US, LD. SR. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUBHASHCHANDER V. CIT [2008] 166 TAXMAN 34 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 307 WHEREIN THE NON-OBJECTION AS PER SECTION 124(2) READ WITH SECTION 124(4) OF THE ACT, THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY AO WAS HELD TO BE VALID. FU RTHER, THERE WAS RELIANCE BY SR. DR ON THE CASE LAW OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BRITISH INDIA CORPN. LTD. [2011] 337 ITR 64 [2012] 20 TAXMANN.COM 446, WHEREIN ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION, BY AO FOR ASSESSMENT, U/S. 124 OF THE ACT THAT WHEN THE ITO HAD JURISDICTION WHEN ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AND A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUBMITTED TO IAC BUT DUE TO SU BSEQUENT CHANGE IN JURISDICTION, UNLESS THE SAME BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED, T HE ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT BE VITIATED. WE ARE WITH TH E ARGUMENT OF LD. SR. DR IN RESPECT TO THIS ARGUMENT THAT WHERE THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE AO, ASSESSEE HAS TO OBJECT TO THE SAME U/S. 124 OF THE ACT IN CASE HR US AGGRIEVED. BUT, WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX T RANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION U/S. 127 OF THE ACT. W E ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT WHEN ANY CASE OF A PARTICULAR ASSESSEE WHICH IS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE AO TO ANOTHER AO, WHETHER WITHIN THE STATE OR WITHOUT IT, ALL PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE PENDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SAME YEAR AS ALSO PREVIOUS YEARS ARE MEANT TO BE TRANSFERRED SIMULTANEOUSLY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT WH ICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHATEVER ARE ALSO I NCLUDED THEREIN, SO THAT THE AO TO WHOM SUCH CASE I S TRANSFERRED WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO CONTINUE THE PENDING PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO INSTITUTE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR. THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING AT THE DATE OF TRANSFER CAN BE THUS CONTINUED BUT IN THE CASE OF S UCH PROCEEDINGS THE PROVISIONS IN REGARD TO ISSUANC E OF NOTICES CONTAINED IN THE MAIN BODY OF SECTION 12 7(2) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY AND IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO REISSUE ANY NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY A O FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LT. COL. PARAMJIT SINGH V. CIT [1996] 89 TAXMAN 536. 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 1 20, 124 AND 127 OF THE ACT, THE PLENARY POWERS REGARDING CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION HAS BEEN VESTE D, BY DELEGATION BY THE STATUTE, ON THE COMMISSIONER HAVING JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF ASSE SSMENT OF THE CASE. THIS POWER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION, EMPOWERS THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX TO EFFECT REALIGNMENT OF JURISDICTION. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BY ORD ER OR DIRECTION, WHILE DIVESTING THESE AUTHORITIES OF THE POWER IN RESPECT OF PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUT IES UNDER THE ACT CONFERRED EARLIER, MAY CONFER SUC H JURISDICTION TO OTHER AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT, AS HE MAY DIRECT. AS SOON AS SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION IS MADE COMPLETELY DIVESTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE A UTHORITIES SO LONG SO EMPOWERED, ALL PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THOSE WHICH MIGHT ARISE THEREAFTER, BEFOR E THEM AS ALSO PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THEM, COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEWLY CONFERRED AUTHORITIES UNLESS ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION IS MADE IN RESPECT OF ANY PENDING PROCEEDINGS. SUCH CONSEQUENC E IS INEVITABLE WHEN THERE IS WITHDRAWAL OF JURISDICTION, WHICH MEANS AUTOMATIC EXTINCTION OF J URISDICTION OF ONE AUTHORITY WITH SIMULTANEOUS CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION ON ANOTHER AUTHORITY UND ER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ALL PENDING AND FUTURE PROCEEDINGS. EXPLANATION TO SECTION 127 OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE WORD 'CASE' IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER OF TRANSFER MEANS ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DAT E OF THE TRANSFER, AND ALSO INCLUDES ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AF TER THE DATE OF TRANSFER IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR. THE WORD 'CASE' IS THUS USED IN A COMPREHENSIVE SEN SE OF INCLUDING BOTH PENDING PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEEDINGS TO BE INSTITUTED IN THE FUTURE. CONSEQU ENTLY, AN ORDER OF TRANSFER CAN BE VALIDLY MADE EVE N IF THERE BE NO PROCEEDINGS PENDING FOR ASSESSMENT O F TAX AND THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSFER MAY SIMPLY BE THAT ALL FUTURE PROCEEDINGS ARE TO TAKE PLACE BEFOR E THE OFFICER TO WHOM THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRANSFERRED. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE REGARDING JURISDI CTION AND FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDER PASS ED BY CIT-1, DELHI, TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION FROM ITO , WARD-3(3), NEW DELHI ON 04-01-2010, SUBSEQUENT ACTION OF THE AO I.E. ITO, WARD-3(3), NEW DELHI ISS UING NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DATED 25-03-2010 IS INVALID BECAUSE THE JURISDICTION FROM ITO, WARD-3(3 ), NEW DELHI BY CIT-1, DELHI TO ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA. AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ORDER BY CIT-1, DELHI TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION FROM ITO, WARD- 3(3), NEW DELHI DATED 04-01-2010 TO ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA, THERE IS NO PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE ITO, DELHI AND THE TRANSFER ORDER FOR JURISDICT ION WAS PASSED ON THAT DATE. THE CIT, DELHI-1 35 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 PASSED ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT ON 01-01-2010 TRAN SFERRING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO ITO, WD-6(1), KOLKATA AND THE JURISDICTION IN RESPECT TO EVERY ACTION FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS LIES WITH TH E ITO, WD-6(1), KOLKATA AND ONLY HE IS COMPETENT TO I SSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE AC T BY THE ITO, WARD-3(3), NEW DELHI IS BAD AND ILLEGAL IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BECAUSE AN ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF CASE WAS VALIDLY MADE BY CIT AND THE PURPOSE FOR TRANSFER WAS SIMPLY THAT ALL FUTURE PROCEEDINGS ARE TO BE TAKEN BY ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA W.E.F. 04-01-2010. HENCE, T HE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DATED 25.03.2010 IS QUASHED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 31. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD VS VIJENDER SINGH (211 T AXMAN 570) SUPPORT THE LEGAL GROUND CANVASSED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE US. THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FINDINGS OF THE SAID CASE WERE AS FOLLOWS: 3. THE BASIC ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT ON CE THE CIT-10 MUMBAI IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN HIM UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT HAS T RANSFERRED THE POWER TO ASSESS THE PETITIONER ON 22.11.2011 FROM ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI TO DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2) PUNE, THEN THE ACIT-10(1) WOULD HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30. 03.2012 AND THEREFORE, THE SAID NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012 IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ON SHIFTING THE REGI STERED OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE , THE PETITIONER IN JUNE-JULY, 2009 HAD APPLIED FOR T RANSFER OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE. AFTER, EXCHANGE OF SEVERAL LETTERS, THE CIT-1 0 MUMBAI BY HIS ORDER DATED 22.11.2011 TRANSFERRED THE POWERS TO ASSESS THE PETITIONER FRO M ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI TO DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2) PUNE. THUS, FROM 22.11.2011 ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI DID NOT HAV E ANY POWER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE PETITIONER. 5. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ON TRANSFER OF THE JUR ISDICTION FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE, THE ADDITIONAL CIT, (TP) PUNE HAS ASSUMED JURISDICTION AND ACCORDINGLY ISSUED A NOTICE DATED 29.03.2012 TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 92CA OF THE ACT RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. 6. HOWEVER, THE ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI HAS ISSUED THE IM PUGNED NOTICE ON 30.03.2012 UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT WITH A VIEW TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT F OR A.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE BY ITS LETTER DATED 24.04.2012 OBJECTED TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BY SPECI FICALLY STATING THAT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF CIT DATED 22.11.2011, THE ACIT-10(1) WOULD HAVE NO LOCU S STANDI OR JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012. AS THERE WAS NO REPLY, THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS FILED INTER ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT ONCE THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS/REASSES S THE PETITIONER VESTED IN THE ACIT-10(1) IS DIVEST ED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT-10 MUMBAI DATED 22.11.2011, THE ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI WOULD CEASE TO HAVE POWER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE PETITIONER AND HENC E, THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS LIABLE TO BE Q UASHED AND SET ASIDE. 7. IN THE AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY FILED BY THE DCIT-10(1 ) MUMBAI DATED 8.10.2012 IT IS STATED THAT BY A CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012, THE CIT-10 MUMB AI HAS TEMPORARILY WITHDRAWN/CANCELLED THE EARLIER TRANSFER ORDER DATED 22.11.2011 FOR THE SAK E OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE AND THEREFORE, THE NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012 WOULD BE VALID. IT IS THE C ASE OF THE PETITIONER THAT NEITHER ANY NOTICE TO PA SS A CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER NOR THE ALLEGED CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE PETITIONER TILL DATE. 36 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 8. MR. PINTO, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE ON IN STRUCTION FROM CIT-10 MUMBAI INFORMS US THAT THERE IS NO PROOF OF SERVING THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 UPON THE PETITIONER. IT IS NEITHER THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT BEFORE PASSING THE COR RIGENDUM ANY NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER NO R IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONER. 9. ALTHOUGH IN THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY THE REVENUE C LAIMS TO HAVE ANNEXED A COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 NO SUCH ORDER WAS IN FACT AN NEXED TO THE AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY. IT IS ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE A DMITTED THE LAPSE AND TENDERED A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.03.2012 ADDRESSED BY ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI TO CIT-10 MUMBAI AS WELL AS THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 TO THE COURT AS ALSO TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER. .. 11. THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27/3/2012 PASSED BY CIT-10 MUMBAI READS THUS:- 12. THE QUESTION THEREFORE TO BE CONSIDERED IS, WHE N THE CIT-10 MUMBAI HAS TRANSFERRED THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS/REASSESS THE PETITIONER FROM ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI TO DCIT CIRCLE-1(2) PUNE UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT AFTER HEARING THE PETI TIONER ON 22.11.2011, WHETHER THE CIT-10 MUMBAI AT THE INSTANCE OF ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI IS JUSTIFIED I N ISSUING A CORRIGENDUM ORDER ON 27.03.2012 BEHIND THE BACK OF THE PETITIONER & WHETHER THE ACI T-10(1) MUMBAI IS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 30.03.2012 ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 WHICH IS PASSED WITHOUT ISSU ING A NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER, WITHOUT HEARING THE PETITIONER AND WHICH IS UNCOMMUNICATED TO THE PETIT IONER. 13. MR. PINTO, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE AND WITHOUT HEARING T HE PETITIONER AND FURTHER ADMITS THAT THE SAID CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE PETITIONE R TILL DATE AND THAT HE HAS TENDERED A COPY OF THE SAID CORRIGENDUM ORDER UPON THE COUNSEL FOR THE PET ITIONER TODAY IN COURT. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITS THAT ONCE THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT-10 MUMBAI ON 27.03.2012 THE ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI WAS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012. 14. IN OUR OPINION, THE CONDUCT OF ACIT-10(1) MUMBA I AS WELL AS CIT-10 MUMBAI IS HIGHLY DEPLORABLE. ONCE THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE PET ITIONER WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE CIT-10 MUMBAI FROM ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI TO DCIT CIRCLE-1(2) PUNE BY ORDER DATED 22.11.2011 IT WAS TOTALLY IMPROPER ON THE PART OF ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI TO REQUEST THE CIT-10 , MUMBAI TO PASS A CORRIGENDUM ORDER WITH A VIEW TO CIRCUMVENT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. MAKING SUCH A REQUEST ON THE PART OF ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI TO THE CIT-10 MUMBAI IN OUR OPINION, WAS IN GROSS A BUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW. IF THERE WAS ANY TIME BARRING ISSUE, THE ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI OUGHT TO HAVE ASKED HIS COUNTERPART AT PUNE TO WHOM THE JURISDICTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ST EPS IN THE MATTER INSTEAD OF TAKING STEPS TO CIRCUMVENT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. IT DOES NOT BE FIT ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI TO INDULGE IN CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND WE STRONGLY CONDEMN THE C ONDUCT OF ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI IN THAT BEHALF. INSTEAD OF BRINGING TO BOOK THE PERSONS WHO CIRCUMV ENT THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI HAS HIMSELF INDULGED IN CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISION S OF LAW WHICH IS TOTALLY DISGRACEFUL. 15. IN ANY EVENT, THE CIT-10 MUMBAI OUGHT NOT TO HA VE SUCCUMBED TO THE UNJUST DEMANDS OF ACIT- 10(1) AND INSTEAD OUGHT TO HAVE ADMONISHED THE ACIT -10(1) FOR MAKING SUCH UNJUST REQUEST. THE CIT- 10 MUMBAI OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE IS NO PROV ISION UNDER THE ACT WHICH EMPOWERS THE CIT TO TEMPORARILY WITHDRAW THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT FOR THE SAKE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE OR OTHERWISE. IF THE CIT -10 MUMBAI WAS HONESTLY OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT WAS RE QUIRED TO BE RECALLED FOR ANY VALID REASONS, THEN, 37 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 THE CIT-10 MUMBAI OUGHT TO HAVE ISSUED NOTICE TO TH AT EFFECT TO THE PETITIONER AND AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONER OUGHT TO HAVE PASSED ANY ORDER AS HE DEE MED FIT AND SERVE THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER. 16. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE CIT-10 MUM BAI HAS NOT ISSUED ANY NOTICE AND HAS NOT HEARD THE PETITIONER BEFORE PASSING THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER AND IN FACT THE SAID CORRIGENDUM ORDER HAS NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER BEFORE ISSUING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012 AND ADMITTEDLY THE ALLEGED CORRIGENDUM ORDER IS SERVED UPON THE PETITIONER FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY IN COURT. 17. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI BASED ON THE CORRIGENDUM ORDE R DATED 27.03.2012 PASSED ALLEGEDLY BY THE CIT-10 MUMBAI AT THE BEHEST OF ACIT-10(1) MUMBAI AN D IN GROSS ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW. APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE CIT-10 MUMBAI HAD NO JURISDI CTION TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT, IN THE FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE IMPUGNED CORRIGENDUM ORDER PASSED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE PETITIONER WITHOUT IS SUING ANY NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER, WITHOUT HEARING THE PETITIONER AND ADMITTEDLY UNCOMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER TILL DATE, WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL EXISTENC E AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012 BASED ON THE LEGALLY NON-EXISTENT CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 32. BEFORE US THE LD. CIT, DR SUPPORTED THE AOS OR DER BY PLACING STRONG RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SES OF ABHISHEK JAIN VSITO (SUPRA) AND SS AHLUWALIA (SUPRA). AS OBSERVED EARLIER, THESE DE CISIONS WERE RENDERED IN TOTALLY DIFFERENT FACTUAL CONTEXT AND THEREFORE THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THESE DECISIONS CANNOT BE APPLIED. IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK JAIN (SUPRA), THE AO AT NOI DA HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE BASIS OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN ICICI BANK, NOIDA. IN THA T CASE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY ASSESSED IN DELHI WAS NOT INTIMATED TO TH E AO AT NOIDA NOR DID THE ASSESSEE MENTION HIS PAN WITH THE ICICI BANK. EVEN THE ASSES SEES ADDRESS AVAILABLE WITH THE BANK WAS THAT OF NOIDA. IN THIS CASE IT WAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO DELHI BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER U/S 127 PASSED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER WHOM THE AO AT NOIDA WAS FUNCTIONING. THE COURT FUR THER FOUND THAT IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 149 EXPI RED ON 31ST MARCH, 2016, THAT THE ASSESSEE INTIMATED THE AO AT NOIDA THAT HE HAD BEEN REGULARL Y ASSESSED IN DELHI. ON THESE FACTS, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT WAS MALA FIDE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE NOT TO INTIMATE THE AO AT NOIDA PRIOR TO 31.03.2016 AND TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAITED FOR THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION TO EXPIRE BEFORE RAISING THIS OBJECTION. IN ABSENCE OF ANY ORDER U/S 127 AND HAVING NOTED THAT WITH REFERENCE TO ADDRESS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ICICI BANK IN WHICH CASH DEPOSITS WERE FOUND, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HE LD THAT ASSESSEE WAS DEBARRED FROM RAISING THE OBJECTION TO AOS JURISDICTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 124(3)(B). IN THE INSTANT CASE, 38 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAD MENTIONED ITS PAN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR AY 2015- 16. BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER U/S 127 DATED 08.10.2008 ,IT WAS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO AT DELHI THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SOLELY VESTED WITH AO AT RANCHI IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2016. ON THESE FACTS WE THEREF ORE FIND THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE FACTUAL CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS RENDERED WAS VASTLY DIFFERE NT. 33. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF S.S. AHLUWALIA (SUPRA ), THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT DELHI FROM 1980-81 TO 1983-84. FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984-85 TO 1987-88, FILED HIS RETURNS AT DIMAPUR. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S 148 BY THE ACIT, INVESTIGATION, DELHI, ON THE BASIS OF CBI SEARCH. WHEN THE QUESTI ON OF JURISDICTION CAME BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSE SSEE SHIFTS HIS RESIDENCE ETC., THE AO OF THE PLACE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTED OR OTHERWI SE WILL HAVE JURISDICTION AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IN SUCH CASE AN ORDER U/S 127 IS REQ UIRED TO BE PASSED. WHILE GOING THROUGH THE DECISION, WE NOTE THAT THERE WAS ALSO AN ORDER U/S 127 OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO, WARD 20, NEW DELHI. THUS, THE CASE OF S.S. AHLUWALIA (SUPRA) CANNOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE. 34. WE NOTE THAT IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS RAISED T HE LD. CIT, DR RELIED ON THE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS (SUPRA). AS NOT ED, THE FACTS OF BOTH THE CASES WERE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. ONE HAS TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE TEXT OF ANY DECISION IS RENDERED IN THE CO NTEXT OF THE FACTS WHICH ARE BEFORE THE COURT. IT IS THEREFORE SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION TH AT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE COURT MUST BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS AND THE IS SUES BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT FOR CONSIDERATION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS SUN ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD (198 ITR 297) HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: IT IS NEITHER DESIRABLE NOR PERMISSIBLE TO PICK OU T A WORD OR A SENTENCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTIO N UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TREAT IT TO BE THE COMPLETE 'LAW' DECLARED BY THE COURT. THE JUDGMENT MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE AND THE OBSERVATIONS FROM THE JUDGMENT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERE D IN THE LIGHT OF THE QUESTIONS WHICH WERE BEFORE THE COURT. A DECISION OF THE COURT TAKES ITS COLOUR FROM THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE IN WHICH IT IS RENDERED AND WHILE APPLYING THE DECI SION TO A LATTER CASE, THE COURTS MUST CAREFULLY TRY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE DECISION OF THE COURT AND NOT TO 39 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 PICK OUT WORDS OR SENTENCES FROM THE JUDGMENT, DIVO RCED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, TO SUPPORT THEIR PROCEE DINGS. 35. COMING BACK TO THE ADMITTED FACTS IN THE PRESEN T CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DA TED 29.12.2017 PURSUANT TO TRANSFER OF CASE ORDEREDBY PCIT, CENTRAL PATNA DATED 03.11.2017 U/S. 127 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT THERE BEING VALID ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE AC T. IN OUR OPINION SUCH AN ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V H OTEL BLUE MOON (2010) 321 ITR 362 (S.C) WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD TH AT ISSUE OF A LEGALLY VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS MANDATORY FOR USURPING JURISDICTION TO FR AME SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND ABSENCE OF A VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS NOT A CURABLE DEFECT. THIS VIEW WAS REITERATED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL(108 TAXMANN.COM 183). THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 5. AT THE OUTSET, IT MUST BE STATED THAT OUT OF TW O QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION IN HOTEL BLUE MOON'S CASE2 THE FIRST QUESTION WAS W HETHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WOULD BE MANDATORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ASSESSME NT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS OBSERVED:- '3. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HELD, WHILE AFFIRMING TH E DECISION OF CIT (A) THAT NON-ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL IR REGULARITY AND THE SAME IS CURABLE. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE GAUHATI HIG H COURT, THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS OF LAW WERE RAISED FOR CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THE H IGH COURT, THEY WERE: '(1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHIN T HE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS MANDATORY? AND (2) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS), THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SHOULD BE DE LETED OR SET ASIDE?' 4. THE HIGH COURT, DISAGREEING WITH THE TRIBUNAL, H ELD, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142 AND SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143 WILL HAVE M ANDATORY APPLICATION IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REPUDIATION OF RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 158-BC(A) PROCEEDS TO MAKE AN INQUIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE HIGH COURT ANSWERED THE QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED IN AFFIRMATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE A PPELLANT AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE THEREAFTER APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR SPECIA L LEAVE UNDER ARTICLE 136, AND THE SAME WAS GRANTED, AND HENCE THIS APPEAL. 13. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERA TION IN THIS BATCH OF APPEALS IS: WHETHER SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME IS A PREREQUISITE FOR FRAMING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961? 40 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 27. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE EXPRESSION 'SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY' INDICATES THAT IT IS NOT EXPECTED TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 2, SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143 STRICTLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS. WE D O NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, SINCE WE DO NOT SE E ANY REASON TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY' . IN OUR VIEW, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REPUDIATION OF THE RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 15 8-BC(A) PROCEEDS TO MAKE AN ENQUIRY, HE HAS NECESSARILY TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142, SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143.' 6. THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, REMAINS WHETHER SECTION 2 92BB WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT ON AND FROM 01.04.2008 HAS EFFECTED ANY CHANGE. SAID SECTION 29 2BB IS TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT:- '292BB. NOTICE DEEMED TO BE VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCUM STANCES.WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR COOPERATED IN ANY INQ UIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UN DER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVE D UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE P RECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY UNDER THIS ACT THAT THE NOTIC E WAS (A) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR (B) NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR (C) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHA LL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT.' 7. A CLOSER LOOK AT SECTION 292BB SHOWS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE WHIC H IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON WAS DULY SERVED AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM TAK ING ANY OBJECTIONS THAT THE NOTICE WAS (A) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR (B) NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR (C) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER. ACCORDING TO MR. MAHABIR SINGH, LE ARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE, SINCE THE RESPONDENT HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB WOULD BE A COMPLETE ANSWER. ON THE OTHER HAND, MR. ANKIT VIJAYWARGIA, LEARNED A DVOCATE, APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF T HE ACT WAS NEVER ISSUED WHICH WAS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDERS PASSED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE STA ND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ISSUANCE OF N OTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT BEING PREREQUISITE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH NOTICE, THE EN TIRE PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE INVALID. 8. THE LAW ON THE POINT AS REGARDS APPLICABILITY OF THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IS QUITE CLEAR FROM THE DECISION IN BLUE MOON'S CASE2. THE ISSUE THAT HOWEVER NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IS THE IMPACT OF SECTION 292 BB OF THE ACT. 9. ACCORDING TO SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, IF THE AS SESSEE HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, BY WAY OF LEGAL FICTION, NOTICE WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE VALID EVEN IF THERE BE INFRACTIONS AS 41 ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, AY- 2015-16 DETAILED IN SAID SECTION. THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIO N IS TO MAKE SERVICE OF NOTICE HAVING CERTAIN INFIRMITIES TO BE PROPER AND VALID IF THERE WAS REQ UISITE PARTICIPATION ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS, HOWEVER, TO BE NOTED THAT THE SECTION DOES NOT SAVE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF NOTICE. FOR SECTION 292BB TO APPLY, THE NOTICE MUST HAVE EMANATED FROM THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS ONLY THE INFIRMITIES IN THE MANNER OF SERVICE OF NOTICE THAT THE SECTION SEEKS TO CURE. THE SECTION IS NOT INTENDED TO CURE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF NOTICE ITSELF. 10. SINCE THE FACTS ON RECORD ARE CLEAR THAT NO NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS EVER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE FINDINGS RENDERED. BY THE HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL AND THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT WERE CORRECT. WE, THEREFORE, SEE NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. 36. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE THEREFORE, WE UPH OLD THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDE R U/S 143(3) FOR AY 2015-16. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE NO VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO WHO HELD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE APPEL LANT, THE CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 29.12.2017 WAS LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE A ND THEREFORE IS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THEREFORE QUASHED. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY SUC CEEDS ON THE PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US. 37. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6TH SEPTE MBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (P. M. JAGTAP) (ABY. T. VARKEY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT M/S. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, 101, PRAGATI TOWER, 26, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110008 2 RESPONDENT ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA 3. 4. CIT(A)-21, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) CIT, KOLKATA 5. DR, ITAT, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR