Income Tax Officer 2(2), Lucknow V. Kapoor Education Society, Lucknow

ITA 162/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5695 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Diversion of income; Application of stay
• Section: 27; 12; 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.162/LKW/2012 A.Y.:07 - 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(2), LUCKNOW. VS. M/S KAPOOR EDUCATION SOCIETY, B - 50, MANDIR MARG, MAHANAGAR EXTENSION, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAATK4023B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.50/LKW/2012 (IN ITA NO.162/LKW/2012) A.Y.:07 - 08 M/S KAPOOR EDUCATION SOCIETY, B - 50, MANDIR MARG, MAHANAGAR EXTENSION, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAATK4023B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(2), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. DATE OF HEARING 30/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 /02/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT ( A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 04/01/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,06,273/ - MADE U/S 13(1)(C) READ WITH 2 SECTION 13(2)(G) FOR COLLUSIVE DIVERSION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO THE PRESIDENT OF SOCIETY , SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR IN THE GARB OF LEASE RENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR WAS PAYING LEASE RENT OF ONLY RS.5,207/ - PER ANNUM TO LDA WHILE TAKING RENT OF RS.25.11 LAC FOR LEASE OF LAND TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WITHOUT EVEN THE C ONSENT OF LDA IN VIOLATION OF THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR AND LDA. 2. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED OF DOING SO ARISES WITH THE PRI OR PERMISSION OF THE HON'BLE BENCH. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF LAND ON WHICH RENT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 21 TO 25 OF THE PAPE R BOOK AND FROM THE SAME , IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE LAND WAS ALLOTTED BY LDA TO SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR, FOUNDER/SECRETARY OF MODERN SCHOOL. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN LAND WAS ALLOTTED BY LDA TO MODERN SCHOOL, HOW RENT CAN BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO SHRI RA KESH KAPOOR. 4. AS AGAINST THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEASE DEED IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 26 TO 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND FROM THE SAME , IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE LEASE AGREEMENT IS BETWEEN SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR AND LDA AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF MODERN SCHOOL AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE LAND WAS ALLOTTED BY LDA TO MODERN SCHOOL AND NOT TO SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR. AT THIS JUNCTURE , LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED BY THE BENCH TO SUBMIT THE COPY OF APPLICATION MADE FOR ALLOTMENT OF LAND TO LDA AND THE ALLOTMENT LETTER ISSUED BY LDA BEING LETTER DATED 17/06/85 AS REFERRED TO IN THE LEASE DEED AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 26 OF THE P APER BOOK. BUT TILL 25/02/2014, NO SUCH DOCUMENT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, WE DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT AS PER TH ESE DOCUMENT S, THE LAND WAS ALLOTTED TO MODERN SCHOOL RUN BY THE ASSESSEE 3 SOCIETY AND NOT TO SHRI RAKESH K APOOR AND ONLY BECAUSE IN THE LEASE DEED , THE NAME OF MODERN SCHOOL IS NOT MENTIONED, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE LAND WAS ALLOTTED TO SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT IN CAPACITY OF FOUNDER/SECRETARY OF MODERN SCHOOL AS MENTIONED IN HI RE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 5. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: (I) DIT(E) VS. SPAN FOUNDATION [2009] 178 TAXMAN 436 (II) I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD ORDER IN THE CASE OF DDI T(E) - II VS. ROCK CHURCH MINISTRIES IN I.T.A. NO.463/HYD/2010 & C.O. NO.20/HYD/2010 (III) VALVOLINE CUMMINS LTD. VS. DY.CIT & ORS. [2008] 217 CTR (DEL) 292 (IV) INVENTORS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT & ORS. 194 ITR 548 (BOM) 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 8 OF HIS ORDER THAT SHRI R AKESH KAPOOR IS PAYING ONLY RS.5,2 07.22 BEING 1% OF THE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND I.E. RS.5,20,722/ - WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID RS.25,06,273/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) READ WITH SECTION 13(2)(G) OF THE ACT AND MADE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.25,06,273/ - . WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ALLOTTED BY LDA TO SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR IN HIS CAPACITY AS FOUNDER/SECRETARY OF THE SCHOOL BEING RUN BY THE SOCIETY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE US THE APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT O F LAND AND THE ALLOTMENT LETTER ISSUED BY LDA TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LAND WAS ALLOTTED TO SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR AND NOT TO MODERN SCHOOL. HENCE, WE DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE AND HOLD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ALLOTTED BY LDA TO MODERN SCHOOL BEING RUN BY AS SESSEE SOCIETY AND, THEREFORE, NO RENT IS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR 4 FOR USE OF THE LAND FOR RUNNING OF THE SCHOOL. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.25,11,480/ - TO SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR FOR THIS LAND AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWE D THE EXCESS AMOUNT AFTER DEDUCTING LEASE RENT PAID BY SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR TO LDA OF RS.5,207/ - . SINCE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ALLOTTED BY LDA TO MODERN SCHOOL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ( A). REGARDING VARIOUS JUDGMEN TS CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THESE JUDGMENTS ARE OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE . 6.1 THE FIRST JUDGMENT IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) VS. SPAN FOUNDATION (SUPRA) IN WHI CH THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS AS TO WHETHER THE RENT RECEIVED FROM THE BUILDING TO REPAY THE BORROWED FUND, BORROWED FOR CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DISPUTE IS DIFFERENT AND, THEREFORE, T HIS JUDGMENT IS NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 6.2 THE SECOND DECISION IS THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. HYDERABAD BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DDIT(E) - II VS. ROCK CHURCH MINISTRIES (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE , THE ASSESSEE PAID RENT OF RS.9,500/ - PER MONTH TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRUST. THIS IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 11 THAT THIS RENT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PROPERTY HAVING A BUILDING OF 4000 SQ. FT. ON A LAND ADMEASURING 15,000 SQ. FT. THAT TO O IN A PRIME LOCALITY IN THE CITY OF HYDERABAD AND THE MARKET RENT WAS RS.80,000/ - PER MONTH AS ESTIMATED BY THE GOVERNMENT VALUER. THIS WAS NOT A FACT OF THAT CASE THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS IN FACT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND NOT TO THE PERSON TO WHOM THE RENT WAS PAID AS IN THE PRESENT CASE. BECAUSE OF THESE DIFFERENCES, THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS ALSO NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 6.3 THE THIRD JUDGMENT IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF VALV OLINE CUMMINS LTD. VS. DY.CIT & ORS. (SUPRA). THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE DISP UTE WAS REGARDING THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION ONLY. 6.4 THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RE NDERED IN THE CASE OF INVENTORS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT & ORS. (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE ALSO , THE DISPUTE WAS REGARDING CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE. 7. AS PER ABOVE D ISCUSSION, WE HAVE SEEN THAT NONE OF THE JUDGMENT S IS RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LAND IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS BELONGING TO MODERN SCHOOL AND THEREFORE, NO RENT CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE PAYABLE TO SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR FOR THE USE OF THIS LAND F OR RUNNING OF THE SCHOOL EXCEPT REIMBURSEMENT OF THE LEASE RENT PAID BY SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR TO LDA WHICH IS ALREADY ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS IS SUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 8. NOW WE TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION , THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 7 GROUNDS BUT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 1,3,4 & 6 ARE NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. THE REMAINING GROUNDS BEING GROUND NO. 2,5 & 7 ARE AS UNDER: 2. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDL. CIT STOOD AUTHORIZED TO ACT AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 2(7A) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18/12/2009 AS PASSED BY ADDL. CIT, RANGE - II, LUCKNOW WAS VERY LEGAL. 5. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, RANGE - 6 II, LUCKNOW, PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2009 STOOD AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 2 (7A) OF THE ACT TO ACT AS ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2009 AS PASSED BY HIM WAS VALID. 7. BECAUSE IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT CAUSING IN ANY MANNER ANY PREJUDICE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2), IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID NOTICE HAVING BEEN ISSUED BY ITO - LL(2), RANGE - LL, LUCKNOW, THE SAID INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY CONTINUED TO HOLD JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID ORDER UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN PASSED, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2009 WAS LIABLE TO BE DECLARED AS VOID ABINITIO. 9. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 6.2.1 ON PAGE 17 OF HIS ORDER. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF VALVOLINE CUMMINS LTD. VS. DY.CIT & ORS. [2008] 217 CTR (DEL) 292 , COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PA GES 53 TO 65 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN PARTICULAR , OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE NO. 61 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 10. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVA ILABLE ON RECORD AND THE JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PARA OF ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) BEING PARA NO. 6.2.1 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 6.2.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND I DO NOT FIND ANY MER IT IN ITS CONTENTION SINCE THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS BEEN GIVE THE POWER OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 2 (7A) AND HAS OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RANGE. AFTER RESTRUCTURING OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL SET UP THE ASSESSING OFFICERS O F A GIVEN RANGE, 7 HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVERALL CASES AND THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER BEING HEAD OF THE RANGE CAN EITHER SUPERVISE THE ASSESSMENT OR CAN HIMSELF PASS ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOR SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT OR PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ORDER UNDER SECTION 127 BY COMMISSIONER. ONCE THE JURISDICTION IS ASSIGNED TO A GIVEN RANGE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER HAS ALL THE POWERS WITHIN HIS RANGE TO SUPERVISE/ALLOCATE THE ASSESSMENT AMONG HIS ASSESSING OFFICER OR PASS ANY ASSES SMENT ORDER AS ALL THE OFFICERS OF THE RANGE ENJOY CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER ALL THE CASES IN THAT GIVEN RANGE. THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS THEY ARE GIVEN IN DIFFERENT CONTEXT ALTOGETHER. THUS, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY ADDITIONAL CIT IN THE CAPACITY OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 11.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) , WE FIND THAT THIS DECISION OF CIT(A) IS ON THIS BASIS THAT AFTER RESTRUCTURING OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL SET UP , THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF A GIVEN RANGE HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER ALL CASES AND THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER BEING HEAD OF THE RANGE CAN EITHER SUPERVISE THE ASSESSMENT OR CAN HIMS ELF PASS ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT FOR SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT OR PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ORDER UNDER SECTION 127 BY COMMISSIONER. NOW IN THE LIGHT OF THESE, WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE, IT IS NOTED IN PARA 25 THAT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 16 TH MAY, 2007 READ WITH A FEW SUBSEQUENT LETTERS IN THIS CONNECTION, THE CIT PASSED A JURISDICTIONAL ORDER DATED 1 ST AUGUST 2007 WHEREBY THE ADDL. CIT WAS ENTITLED TO EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF SOME CASES (INCLUDING THAT OF THE ASSESSEE). IT IS ALSO NOTED IN THE SAME PARA THAT IT IS PURSUANT TO THESE ORDERS THAT THE ADDL. CIT PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 31 ST DECEMBER 2007 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, IN COURSE OF DISPOSAL OF THE STAY APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE STAY ORDER WAS PASSED BY DY. CIT AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE HO N'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT 8 IN THE FACTS OF TH AT CASE, SINCE THE ADDL. CIT HAS EXERCISED THE POWER OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER, HE WAS REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO EXERCISE THAT POWER TILL HIS JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER WAS OVER. IT IS ALSO NOTED IN THE SAME PARA THAT HIS JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER WAS NOT OVER MERELY ON THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT IT CONTINUED IN TERMS OF SECTION 220(6) OF THE ACT IN DEALING WITH THE PETITION FOR STAY. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THAT CASE, IN VIEW OF A SPECIFIC ORDER DATED 1 ST AUGUST 2007 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WAS GIVEN JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE BY THE COMMISSIONER AND HENCE, FROM THAT DATE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WAS HAVING EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND NOT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ANY SIMILAR ORDER WAS PASSED BY CIT IN THE PRESENT CASE AS PER WHICH THE ADDL. CIT OR THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS VESTED WITH EXCLUSIVE JURI SDICTION OVER THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AS COMPARED TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF VALVOLINE CUMMINS LTD. VS. DY.CIT & ORS. (SUPRA) WHERE SPECIFIC ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT GRANTING SPECIFIC JURISDICTION TO ADDL. CIT AND IN VIEW OF THAT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED FOR SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR BY ADDITIONAL CIT BUT STAY ORDER WAS PASSED BY DCIT WITHOUT ANY TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE DCIT WAS NOT ENJOYING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF CIT GRANTING SPECIFIC JURISDICTION TO ADDITIONAL CIT . HENCE, THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTICE U/S 143 (2) WAS ISSUED ON 22/09/2008 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - II(2 ), LUCKNOW AND THEREAFTER , WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY TRANSFER ORDER U/S 1 2 7 BY THE CCIT/CIT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 02. REGARDING THIS ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION FROM THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO ADDL. CIT, IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT AFTER RESTRUCTURING OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL SET UP , THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER BEING HEAD OF THE RANGE HAD ALL THE POWERS WITHIN HIS RANGE TO SUPERVISE THE ASSESSMENT OR PASS ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER. HENCE, 9 IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE JURISDICTION OF ADDL. CIT OVER THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO LACK OF JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE CROSS OBJECTION. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND SEEN THAT THE ORDER OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICAB LE. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS OF THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE REJECTED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 / 02 /2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR