Aero Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-4(3), Kolkata

ITA 2484/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1241 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANTA KHANRA
• Assessee Lawyers: M JHAWAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Question of law; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Accommodation entries; Procedural lapse; Competent authority; Assessment record; Block assessment; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 133(6); 143(1); 250; 292BB; 143(2); 124(5); 64; 48; 13; 153; 22; 153C; 92CA; 147; 68; 148; 263; 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD...................................................................APPELLANT C/O. S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES 2, GARSTIN PLACE 2 ND FLOOR SUITE NO. 203 OFF HARE STREET KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 700 001 [PAN : AACCA 5934 G] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA........................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE & SHRI M. JHAWAR, FCA, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI JAYANTA KHANRA, JCIT SR. D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 26 TH , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 29 TH , 2020 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 19, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 30/07/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,10,460/- ON 29/09/2009. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUAL OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DT. 30/03/2017. IN COMPLIANCE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 11/04/2016, DECLARING THE VERY SAME INCOME AS ORIGINALLY DECLARED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 13/12/2016, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.18,42,160/- INTERALIA MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.15,31,700/-, AS CASH CREDIT BEING, NET INCOME EARNED FROM CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION (CCM). AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, BOTH AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS AGAINST THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION. 3. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT RECORDED, A COPY OF WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGE 97 OF THE PAPER BOOK, REVEALS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE MATERIAL RECEIVED SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED TRIGGERED THE RE-OPENING, WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED PRELIMINARY VERIFICATION OF THE SAME BEFORE RECORDING REASON FACTS THAT HE BELIEVES THAT INCOME SUBJECT TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW PCIT VS. MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS P. LTD. ( PCIT VS. RMG P PCIT VS. G & G PHARMA INDIA LTD. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (DEL.) 4.1. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT PR. CIT-1, KOLKATA ADDRESSED 30/31.03.2016, MAKE IT CLEAR 30/31.03.2016 FROM THE STAMP OF THE RECEIPT SECTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPROVAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 01/04/2016 AND WHEREAS NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 30/03/2016. THIS RECEIPT OF THE APPROVAL OF THE LD. PR. CIT REOPENING WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE MANDTORY 4.1.1. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LD. PR. CIT WHILE GIVING APPROVAL AS REQUIRED U/S 151 OF THE ACT, FOR THE REASON THAT, APPROVAL WAS ISSUED IN THE CASE OF EIGHT (8) ASSE SSEES BY WAY OF A COMMON LETTER AND THERE IS NO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE LD. PR. CIT 2 REJECTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, BOTH AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS AGAINST THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING BOTH THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON MERITS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY SUBMITTING THAT, A PER USAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED, A COPY OF WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGE 97 OF THE PAPER BOOK, REVEALS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE MATERIAL RECEIVED ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO ANY DERIVATIVE TRANSA YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED PRELIMINARY VERIFICATION OF THE SAME BEFORE RECORDING REASON THAT HE BELIEVES THAT INCOME SUBJECT TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT . HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE -LAW FOR THE PROPOSITIONS CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW :- PCIT VS. MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS P. LTD. ( 2017) 395 ITR 677 (DEL.) PCIT VS. RMG P OLYVINYL (I) LTD. (2017) 396 ITR 5 (DEL.) PCIT VS. G & G PHARMA INDIA LTD. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (DEL.) HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT , THE LETTER OF THE DCIT, HQS.-1, KOLKATA, ON BEHALF OF ADDRESSED TO THE ADDL. CIT/JT. CIT RANGE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS APPROVAL LETTER WAS ISSUE BY THE LD. PR. CIT ON FROM THE STAMP OF THE RECEIPT SECTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPROVAL WAS OFFICER ON 01/04/2016 AND WHEREAS NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ISSUED ON 30/03/2016. THIS SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED MUCH PRIOR TO THE OF THE LD. PR. CIT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ARGUED THAT THE TO THE MANDTORY APPROVAL AND HENCE BAD IN LAW. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LD. PR. CIT WHILE GIVING APPROVAL AS REQUIRED U/S 151 OF THE ACT, FOR THE REASON THAT, APPROVAL WAS ISSUED SSEES BY WAY OF A COMMON LETTER AND THERE IS NO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE LD. PR. CIT AS REQUIRED BY LAW, THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR RE ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. REJECTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, BOTH AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS US CHALLENGING BOTH THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON MERITS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, CHALLENGED THE REOPENING USAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED, A COPY OF WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGE 97 OF THE PAPER BOOK, REVEALS TOTAL NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE MATERIAL RECEIVED BY HIM. HE TRANSA CTION DURING THE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED PRELIMINARY VERIFICATION OF THE SAME BEFORE RECORDING REASON S ON INCORRECT THAT UNDER SUCH 2017) 395 ITR 677 (DEL.) PCIT VS. G & G PHARMA INDIA LTD. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (DEL.) ON BEHALF OF THE LD. TO THE ADDL. CIT/JT. CIT RANGE -1, KOLKATA, DT. WAS ISSUE BY THE LD. PR. CIT ON FROM THE STAMP OF THE RECEIPT SECTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPROVAL WAS OFFICER ON 01/04/2016 AND WHEREAS NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED MUCH PRIOR TO THE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ARGUED THAT THE APPROVAL AND HENCE BAD IN LAW. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LD. PR. CIT WHILE GIVING APPROVAL AS REQUIRED U/S 151 OF THE ACT, FOR THE REASON THAT, APPROVAL WAS ISSUED SSEES BY WAY OF A COMMON LETTER AND THERE IS NO RECORDING OF AS REQUIRED BY LAW, THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR RE -OPENING OF ASSESSMENT . HE RELIED ON CERTAIN CASE NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VIDE LETTER DT. 11/07/2016, SUPPLIED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING VIDE LETTER DT. 18/07/2016, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 44 TO 51 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A SECOND SET OF OBJECTIONS ON 28/10/2016. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTIONS WERE NOT DISPOSED OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND HENCE THE PROCEDURE LAID D OWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) ASSESSMENT BAD IN LAW . HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE P. LTD. VS. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (BOM.) THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE BAD IN LAW. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO RECORDED REASONS AND IS 148 OF THE ACT WAS ITO WARD 1(1) ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT LATER THE FILE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO,WARD THIS OFFICER HAD JURISDICTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT ITO, WARD FRESH NO TICE OR RECORDING REASONS ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 5. ON MERITS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI EXCHANGE OF INDIA (NSE) VIDE LETTER DT. 16/01/2017, HAS FURNISHED INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THERE IS NO FROM APRIL 01,2008 TO MARCH 31, 2009 IN CAPITAL MARKET AND CURRENCY DERIVATIVES SEGMENT. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITIONS EVIDENCE IS BAD IN LAW. HE PRAYED FOR RELIEF 6. THE LD. D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTROVERTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM ADIT, INV. UNIT AHMEDABAD, THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS A BENEFICIARY BY WAY OF CCM AND THAT THE NET BENEFIT WAS RS.15,31,700/ ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS 3 . HE RELIED ON CERTAIN CASE - LAW AND ARGUED THAT SUCH GENERAL APPROVAL DOES REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VIDE LETTER DT. 11/07/2016, SUPPLIED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING VIDE LETTER DT. 18/07/2016, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED 51 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A SECOND SET OF OBJECTIONS ON 28/10/2016. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTIONS WERE NOT DISPOSED OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND HENCE OWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) WAS VIOLATED MAKING THE RE . HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH MATERIAL SCIENCE P. LTD. VS. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (BOM.) THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE BAD IN LAW. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO RECORDED REASONS AND IS ITO WARD 1(1) - KOLKATA, WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT LATER THE FILE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO,WARD THIS OFFICER HAD JURISDICTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA, WITHOUT ISSUING TICE OR RECORDING REASONS THAT HE IS SATISFIED THAT INCOME TO TAX HAS ESCAPED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. ON MERITS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA (NSE) VIDE LETTER DT. 16/01/2017, HAS FURNISHED INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT THAT IN THE CASE OF THE STATED THAT THERE IS NO NO CLIENT CODE MODIFICATIONS DETAILS DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 01,2008 TO MARCH 31, 2009 IN CAPITAL MARKET AND CURRENCY DERIVATIVES SEGMENT. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITIONS WHICH ARE MADE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THIS EVIDENCE IS BAD IN LAW. HE PRAYED FOR RELIEF . D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTROVERTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM ADIT, INV. UNIT AHMEDABAD, THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS A BENEFICIARY BY WAY OF CCM AND THAT THE WAS RS.15,31,700/ - . HE SUBMITTED THAT BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS THAT HE BELIEVES THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX HAS ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. LAW AND ARGUED THAT SUCH GENERAL APPROVAL DOES REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VIDE LETTER DT. 11/07/2016, SUPPLIED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING VIDE LETTER DT. 18/07/2016, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED 51 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A SECOND SET OF OBJECTIONS ON 28/10/2016. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTIONS WERE NOT DISPOSED OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND HENCE OWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF G.K.N. DRIVESHAFTS WAS VIOLATED MAKING THE RE -OPENING OF . HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH MATERIAL SCIENCE P. LTD. VS. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (BOM.) , FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE BAD IN LAW. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO RECORDED REASONS AND IS SUED NOTICE U/S. HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT LATER THE FILE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO,WARD -4(3), KOLKATA, AS 4(3), KOLKATA, WITHOUT ISSUING THAT HE IS SATISFIED THAT INCOME TO TAX HAS ESCAPED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT TTED THAT THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA (NSE) VIDE LETTER DT. 16/01/2017, HAS FURNISHED INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT THAT IN THE CASE OF THE DETAILS DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 01,2008 TO MARCH 31, 2009 IN CAPITAL MARKET AND CURRENCY DERIVATIVES WHICH ARE MADE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THIS D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTROVERTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM ADIT, INV. UNIT -1(3), AHMEDABAD, THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS A BENEFICIARY BY WAY OF CCM AND THAT THE . HE SUBMITTED THAT BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, THE BELIEVES THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND IT IS RELIED ON THE CASE- LAW CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT AT THE STAGE OF RECORDING OF REASONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEED NOT, WITH PROOF, COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS OF OBJECTIONS, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THAT OBJECTIONS WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONSULTATION WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE ISSUE OF APPROVAL U/S 151 OF THE ACT, HE SUBMITS THAT THE DATES AND EVENTS PROVE THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND THE ISSUAL OF THE NOTICE/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ARE ON THE SA ME DAY AND HENCE VALID IN LAW. HE SUBMITS THAT RECEIPT ON THE PAPER OF APPROVAL BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT A CRITERIA AS KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPROVAL OF THE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUFFICIENT. 6.1. ON MERITS, HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TH PERMITTED WHEN GENUINE MISTAKES TAKE PLACE AND WHEREAS IN THIS CASE, IT IS A MANIPULATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS METHOD HAD BEEN USED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 7. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, 8. I FIRST TAKE UP THE ISSU ASSESSMENT AS FURNISHED BY THE ITO, WARD 11/07/2016, IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE: SUB: S CRUTINY U/S. 147 OF THE I LIMITED, PAN- AACCA5934G FOR THE A.Y. 2009 REF: YOUR LETTER DATED 14.04.2016. WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR ABOVE LETTER, IT IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE REASON FOR REOPENING OF YOUR CASE IS AS FOLLOWS: 'AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS A BENEFICIARY BY WAY OF CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION(CCM) AT THE TIME OF DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION IN NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE. 4 AND THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND IT IS NOT A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION. HE LAW CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT AT THE STAGE OF RECORDING OF REASONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEED NOT, WITH PROOF, COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, HE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THIS CONTENTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW . REGARDING DISPOSAL OF OBJECTIONS, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THAT OBJECTIONS WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONSULTATION WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE ISSUE OF APPROVAL U/S 151 OF THE ACT, HE SUBMITS THAT THE DATES AND EVENTS PROVE THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND THE ISSUAL OF THE NOTICE/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ARE ON THE ME DAY AND HENCE VALID IN LAW. HE SUBMITS THAT RECEIPT ON THE PAPER OF APPROVAL BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT A CRITERIA AS KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPROVAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUFFICIENT. ON MERITS, HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT CCM IS PERMITTED WHEN GENUINE MISTAKES TAKE PLACE AND WHEREAS IN THIS CASE, IT IS A HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS METHOD HAD BEEN USED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEFRAUD HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, I HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- FIRST TAKE UP THE ISSU E OF REOPENING. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS FURNISHED BY THE ITO, WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, TO THE ASSESSEE, DT. 11/07/2016, IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE: - CRUTINY U/S. 147 OF THE I .T. ACT, IN RESPECT OF M/S. AEREO DEALCOM AACCA5934G FOR THE A.Y. 2009 -10 - MATTER REGARDING. REF: YOUR LETTER DATED 14.04.2016. WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR ABOVE LETTER, IT IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE REASON FOR REOPENING OF 'AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ADIT(INV.), UNIT-1 (3), AHMEDABAD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS A BENEFICIARY BY WAY OF CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION(CCM) AT THE TIME OF DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION IN NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE. ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. AND THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL NOT A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION. HE LAW CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT AT THE STAGE OF RECORDING OF REASONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEED NOT, WITH PROOF, COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, HE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . REGARDING DISPOSAL OF OBJECTIONS, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THAT OBJECTIONS WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONSULTATION WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE ISSUE OF APPROVAL U/S 151 OF THE ACT, HE SUBMITS THAT THE DATES AND EVENTS PROVE THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND THE ISSUAL OF THE NOTICE/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ARE ON THE ME DAY AND HENCE VALID IN LAW. HE SUBMITS THAT RECEIPT ON THE PAPER OF APPROVAL BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT A CRITERIA AS KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPROVAL OF THE LD. PR. CIT BY E LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT CCM IS PERMITTED WHEN GENUINE MISTAKES TAKE PLACE AND WHEREAS IN THIS CASE, IT IS A HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS METHOD HAD BEEN USED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEFRAUD HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES E OF REOPENING. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE 1(1), KOLKATA, TO THE ASSESSEE, DT. .T. ACT, IN RESPECT OF M/S. AEREO DEALCOM PRIVATE WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR ABOVE LETTER, IT IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE REASON FOR REOPENING OF (3), AHMEDABAD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS A BENEFICIARY BY WAY OF CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION(CCM) AT THE TIME THE ASSESSEE THUS GOT THE BENEFIT OF NET INCOME DUE TO CLIENT THE SUM OF RS.15,31,700/- .' THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF M/S. ALLIED COMMOTRADE PVT. LT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGL 8.1. IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE NSE ISSUED A LETTER ON 16/01/2017 AND STATED AS FOLLOWS: PLEASE FIND NO THE CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION DETAILS DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 01, 2008 TO MARCH 31, 2009 IN CAPITAL MARKET AND CURRENCY DERIVATIVES SEGMENT. PLEASE FIND THE CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION DETAILS FOR FUTURES & OPTIONS SEGMENT AS ANNEXURE A. 8.2. A PERUSAL OF THIS COMMUNICATION REVEALS THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY BY WAY OF CCM IN DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THIS SHOWS NON APPLICATION OF MIND THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE ADIT (INV.), UNIT AHMEDABAD. THE LA W REQUIRES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, PRIOR TO FORMING A REASONABLE BELIEF, THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THEREAFTER RECORD REASONS. WRONG FACTS, WH ICH WERE NOT VERIFIED, THEN IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF NON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE MATERIAL RECEIVED. THUS, THERE IS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL RECEIVED AND THE FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T AND HENCE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. 8.3. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 338 ITR 51 (DEL.), UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME GENERAL - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 TAX (INVESTIGATION), THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FR NOTHING BUT ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS, OWN MIND TO THAT INFORMATION 8.2. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- SECTION 68 , READ WITH SECTION (ACCOMMODATION ENTRY) 5 THE ASSESSEE THUS GOT THE BENEFIT OF NET INCOME DUE TO CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION FOR .' THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF M/S. ALLIED COMMOTRADE PVT. LT D TO THE TUNE OF RS. 15,31, 700/- FOR THE RELEVANT ASSTT. YEAR HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGL Y THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S.147 OF THE I. T. ACT. IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE NSE ISSUED A LETTER ON 16/01/2017 AND STATED AS FOLLOWS: - PLEASE FIND NO THE CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION DETAILS DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 01, TO MARCH 31, 2009 IN CAPITAL MARKET AND CURRENCY DERIVATIVES SEGMENT. PLEASE FIND THE CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION DETAILS FOR FUTURES & OPTIONS SEGMENT AS ANNEXURE A PERUSAL OF THIS COMMUNICATION REVEALS THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY BY WAY OF CCM IN DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THIS SHOWS NON APPLICATION OF MIND THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE ADIT (INV.), UNIT W REQUIRES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRIMA FACIE APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, PRIOR TO FORMING A REASONABLE BELIEF, THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THEREAFTER RECORD REASONS. WHEN REASONS ARE BASED ON ICH WERE NOT VERIFIED, THEN IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE MATERIAL RECEIVED. THUS, THERE IS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL RECEIVED AND THE FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED T AND HENCE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIGNATURE HOTELS P. LTD. VS. ITO (2011) UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: - OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 - INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04 - INFORMATION GIVEN BY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FR OM OTHER COMPANY WAS NOTHING BUT ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS, OWN MIND TO THAT INFORMATION THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. RM G POLYVINYL (I) LTD. (SUPRA), , READ WITH SECTION 147 , OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (ACCOMMODATION ENTRY) - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 - INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. CODE MODIFICATION FOR THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF M/S. FOR THE RELEVANT ASSTT. YEAR HAS T. ACT. IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE NSE ISSUED A LETTER ON PLEASE FIND NO THE CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION DETAILS DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 01, TO MARCH 31, 2009 IN CAPITAL MARKET AND CURRENCY DERIVATIVES SEGMENT. PLEASE FIND THE CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION DETAILS FOR FUTURES & OPTIONS SEGMENT AS ANNEXURE A PERUSAL OF THIS COMMUNICATION REVEALS THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY BY WAY OF CCM IN DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THIS SHOWS NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE I.T.O TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE ADIT (INV.), UNIT -1(3), APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, PRIOR TO FORMING A REASONABLE BELIEF, THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX WHEN REASONS ARE BASED ON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE MATERIAL RECEIVED. THUS, THERE IS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL RECEIVED AND THE FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED SIGNATURE HOTELS P. LTD. VS. ITO (2011) INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT - INFORMATION GIVEN BY DIRECTOR OF INCOME - OM OTHER COMPANY WAS NOTHING BUT ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS, OWN G POLYVINYL (I) LTD. (SUPRA), TAX ACT, 1961 - CASH CREDIT INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN ESTABLISHED ENTRY OPERATORS THAT ENTRY OPERATORS WERE ENGAGED IN MONEY LAUNDERING BUSINESS FOR BENEFICIARIES ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, SOURCE ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT ON AFORESAID BASIS THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX TO EXTENT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WI PER SE WITHOUT A FURTHER INQUIRY BEING UNDERTAKEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH LINK BETWEEN 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL' AND FORMATION OF REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY, REASSE 8.3. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- HELD THAT AFTER SETTING OUT FOUR ENTRIES, STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A SINGLE DATE, I.E., 10 ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, WHICH INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT HE HAD ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS MATERIALS AND REPORT FROM INVESTIGATION WING AND ON THAT BA COMPANY HAD INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF ABOVE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ABOVE CONCLUSION IS UNHELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATERI PARTICULARLY SINCE HE DID NOT DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE MATERIALS WERE. ONCE THE DATE ON WHICH THE SO CALLED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IS KNOWN, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF HE HAD IN FACT UNDER MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THOSE VERY ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN TENDERED ALONG WITH THE RETURN, WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3).WITHOUT FORMING A PRIMA FACIE OPI BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THUS, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT 9. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE THE CASE ON HAND, I HAVE TO HOLD THAT THE REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW. 10. I ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE REOPENING BY WAY OF LETTERS DT. 18/07/2016 AND 28/10/2016. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THESE OBJECTIONS BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER, AS MANDATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF OF ASSESSMENT. 10.1. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (BOM.), 11. IN THE PRESENT F ACTS, WE FIND THAT THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30TH MARCH, 2015 WITHOUT HAVING DISPOSED OF THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REASONS RECORDED IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. THE REASONS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE 6 INVESTIGATION WING THAT ASSESSEE -COM PANY WAS A BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN ESTABLISHED ENTRY OPERATORS - DURING INVESTIGATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT ENTRY OPERATORS WERE ENGAGED IN MONEY LAUNDERING BUSINESS FOR BENEFICIARIES ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, SOURCE S OF TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT EXPLAINED ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT ON AFORESAID BASIS THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX TO EXTENT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WI NG COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE TANGIBLE MATERIAL PER SE WITHOUT A FURTHER INQUIRY BEING UNDERTAKEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH LINK BETWEEN 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL' AND FORMATION OF REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY, REASSE SSMENT WAS UNJUSTIFIED THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. G & G PHARMA LTD. (SUPRA), HELD THAT AFTER SETTING OUT FOUR ENTRIES, STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A SINGLE DATE, I.E., 10 -2-2003, FROM FOUR ENTITIES WHICH WERE TERMED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, WHICH INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT HE HAD ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS MATERIALS AND REPORT FROM INVESTIGATION WING AND ON THAT BA SIS IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF ABOVE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ABOVE CONCLUSION IS UNHELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATERI ALS THAT HE TALKS ABOUT PARTICULARLY SINCE HE DID NOT DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE MATERIALS WERE. ONCE THE DATE ON WHICH THE SO CALLED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IS KNOWN, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF HE HAD IN FACT UNDER TAKEN THE EXERCISE, TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THOSE VERY ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN TENDERED ALONG WITH THE RETURN, WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3).WITHOUT FORMING A PRIMA FACIE OPI BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THUS, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE - THE CASE ON HAND, I HAVE TO HOLD THAT THE REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW. I ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE REOPENING BY WAY OF LETTERS DT. 18/07/2016 AND 28/10/2016. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THESE OBJECTIONS BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER, AS MANDATED BY THE HONBLE COURT IN THE CASE OF G.K.N. DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) BEFORE THE COMPLETION THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE P. LTD. VS. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (BOM.), HELD AS FOLLOWS:- ACTS, WE FIND THAT THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30TH MARCH, 2015 WITHOUT HAVING DISPOSED OF THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REASONS RECORDED IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. THE REASONS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. PANY WAS A BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES DURING INVESTIGATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT ENTRY OPERATORS WERE ENGAGED IN MONEY LAUNDERING BUSINESS FOR BENEFICIARIES - S OF TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT EXPLAINED - NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT ON AFORESAID BASIS THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX TO EXTENT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT - WHETHER NG COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE TANGIBLE MATERIAL PER SE WITHOUT A FURTHER INQUIRY BEING UNDERTAKEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH LINK BETWEEN 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL' AND FORMATION OF REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD PCIT VS. G & G PHARMA LTD. (SUPRA), HELD THAT AFTER SETTING OUT FOUR ENTRIES, STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM FOUR ENTITIES WHICH WERE TERMED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, WHICH INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT HE HAD ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS MATERIALS SIS IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAD INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF ABOVE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ABOVE CONCLUSION IS UNHELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING ALS THAT HE TALKS ABOUT PARTICULARLY SINCE HE DID NOT DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE MATERIALS WERE. ONCE THE DATE ON WHICH THE SO CALLED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IS KNOWN, IT WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE EXERCISE, TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THOSE VERY ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN TENDERED ALONG WITH THE RETURN, WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3).WITHOUT FORMING A PRIMA FACIE OPI NION, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THUS, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT VALID. - LAW TO THE FACTS OF I ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE REOPENING BY WAY OF LETTERS DT. 18/07/2016 AND 28/10/2016. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THESE OBJECTIONS BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER, AS MANDATED BY THE HONBLE BEFORE THE COMPLETION BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE P. LTD. VS. ACTS, WE FIND THAT THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30TH MARCH, 2015 WITHOUT HAVING DISPOSED OF THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REASONS RECORDED IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. THE REASONS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER ONLY ON 19TH MARCH, 2 SAME ON 25TH MARCH, 2015. THIS PASSING OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT HAVING DISPOSED OF THE OBJECTIONS IS IN DEFIANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA). TH MARCH, 2015 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THIS FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REASONS RECORDED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR IMPUGNE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30TH MARCH, 2015. WE ARE NOT DEALING THE VALIDITY OF THE REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AS THE TIME LIMIT TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PROVIDED UNDER 4T 153 OF THE ACT HAS ALREADY EXPIRED WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED. 10.2. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF REPORTED IN [2019] 102 TAXMANN.COM 293 (BOMBAY) AS FOLLOWS:- IT : WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A REOPENING NOTICE ON GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE TRANSACTIONS OF HUGE AMOUNT IN NATIONAL/MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE BUT HE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND ASSES FILED AN OBJECTION THAT HE HAD EARNED NO INCOME OUT OF TRADING IN COMMODITY EXCHANGE AND HE HAD ACTUALLY SUFFERED LOSS AND, THEREFORE, HE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME, SINCE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT LOOKED INTO OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE AND PRO UNJUSTIFIED 10.3. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISHWANATH ENGINEERS VS. ACIT REPORTED IN [2013] 352 ITR 549 (GUJ.) HELD AS FOLLOWS: THEREAFTER, ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A WORK CONTRACTOR AND, THUS, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB - ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTION TO NOTICE REASSESSMENT ORD ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT IN SPITE OF NON EXISTENCE OF REQUIRED CONDITIONS SPECIFIED UNDER ACT AND, THEREFORE, REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONS 10.4. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MILLS LTD. V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH 11. AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT TILL DATE. HENCE THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. 12. ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, I FIND THAT IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ITO, WARD KOLKATA, HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE RECORDED BY ITO WARD- 1(1), KOLKATA THIS OFFICER I.E., ITO WARD- 1(1), KOLKATA 7 PETITIONER ONLY ON 19TH MARCH, 2 015 AND THE PETITIONER HAD FILED THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SAME ON 25TH MARCH, 2015. THIS PASSING OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT HAVING DISPOSED OF THE OBJECTIONS IS IN DEFIANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA). TH US, THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30TH MARCH, 2015 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THIS FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REASONS RECORDED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR IMPUGNE D NOTICE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30TH MARCH, 2015. WE ARE NOT DEALING THE VALIDITY OF THE REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AS THE TIME LIMIT TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PROVIDED UNDER 4T H PROVISO TO SUB- SECTION(2) OF SECTION 153 OF THE ACT HAS ALREADY EXPIRED WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOHANLAL CHAMPALAL JAIN VS. ITO REPORTED IN [2019] 102 TAXMANN.COM 293 (BOMBAY) UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS HELD IT : WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A REOPENING NOTICE ON GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE TRANSACTIONS OF HUGE AMOUNT IN NATIONAL/MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE BUT HE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND ASSES FILED AN OBJECTION THAT HE HAD EARNED NO INCOME OUT OF TRADING IN COMMODITY EXCHANGE AND HE HAD ACTUALLY SUFFERED LOSS AND, THEREFORE, HE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME, SINCE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT LOOKED INTO OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE AND PRO CEEDED AHEAD, IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT NOTICE WAS THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISHWANATH ENGINEERS VS. ACIT REPORTED IN [2013] 352 ITR 549 (GUJ.) HELD AS FOLLOWS: - THEREAFTER, ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A WORK CONTRACTOR AND, THUS, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTION TO NOTICE - ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED REASSESSMENT ORD ER WITHOUT DISPOSING OF SUCH OBJECTIONS - WHETHER ASSESSING OFFICER ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT IN SPITE OF NON EXISTENCE OF REQUIRED CONDITIONS SPECIFIED UNDER ACT AND, THEREFORE, REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONS EQUENT REASSESSMENT ORDER WERE TO BE QUASHED [EMPHASIS OURS] SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MILLS LTD. V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH -TAX [2004] 141 TAXMAN 210 (GUJ.) OFFICER HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT TILL DATE. HENCE THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, I FIND THAT IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ITO, WARD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. WHILE SO, THE REASONS FOR REOPENING WAS 1(1), KOLKATA . NOTICE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS ISSUED BY 1(1), KOLKATA . THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. 015 AND THE PETITIONER HAD FILED THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SAME ON 25TH MARCH, 2015. THIS PASSING OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT HAVING DISPOSED OF THE OBJECTIONS IS IN DEFIANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN US, THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30TH MARCH, 2015 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THIS FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE D NOTICE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30TH MARCH, 2015. WE ARE NOT DEALING THE VALIDITY OF THE REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AS THE TIME LIMIT TO SECTION(2) OF SECTION MOHANLAL CHAMPALAL JAIN VS. ITO UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS HELD IT : WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A REOPENING NOTICE ON GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE TRANSACTIONS OF HUGE AMOUNT IN NATIONAL/MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE BUT HE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND ASSES SEE FILED AN OBJECTION THAT HE HAD EARNED NO INCOME OUT OF TRADING IN COMMODITY EXCHANGE AND HE HAD ACTUALLY SUFFERED LOSS AND, THEREFORE, HE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME, SINCE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT LOOKED INTO OBJECTIONS CEEDED AHEAD, IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT NOTICE WAS THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISHWANATH ENGINEERS VS. ACIT THEREAFTER, ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A WORK CONTRACTOR AND, THUS, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED WHETHER ASSESSING OFFICER ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT IN SPITE OF NON - EXISTENCE OF REQUIRED CONDITIONS SPECIFIED UNDER ACT AND, THEREFORE, REASSESSMENT [EMPHASIS OURS] SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ARVIND [2004] 141 TAXMAN 210 (GUJ.) OFFICER HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT TILL DATE. HENCE THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, I FIND THAT IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ITO, WARD -4(3), ASSESSEE. WHILE SO, THE REASONS FOR REOPENING WAS . NOTICE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS ISSUED BY . THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. RUNGTA IR RIGATION LIMITED VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019, ORDER DT. 06/09/2019 SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD AS FOLLOWS: 13. FOR UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION OF INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, IT IS PERTINENT TO MAKE REFERENCE T AND 129 OF THE ACT WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 120. JURISDICTION OF INCOME (1) INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES SHALL EXERCISE 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 (2) THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BOARD UNDER SUB AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFOR BY ALL OR ANY OF THE OTHER INCOME (3) IN ISSUING THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY AUTHORISED BY IT MAY HAVE REGARD TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, NAMELY:- (A) TERRITORIAL AREA; (B) PERSONS OR CLASSES (C) INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME; AND (D) CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES. (4) WITHOUT PREJUDIC SPECIAL ORDER, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED THEREIN,- (A) AUTHORISE ANY DI AUTHORITY AS MAY BE ASSIGNED TO HIM BY THE BOARD; (B) EMPOWER THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER TO IS 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 OF ANY SPECIFIED AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF (5) THE DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB 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, FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF 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 CONCURRENTLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFI THEM SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AMONGST THEM MAY DIRECT, AND, FURTHER, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULE MADE THEREUN DER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH HIGHER AUTHORITY AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF ANY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL NOT APPLY. (6) NOTWITHSTANDIN G ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION, OR IN SECTION 124, THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE,, DIRECT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT OR THING U MADE THEREUNDER BY ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS, THE INCOME 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 8 RIGATION LIMITED VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019, ORDER DT. 06/09/2019 SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD AS FOLLOWS: - FOR UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION OF INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, IT IS PERTINENT TO MAKE REFERENCE T O PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120, 124, 127 AND 129 OF THE ACT WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: JURISDICTION OF INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES TAX AUTHORITIES SHALL EXERCISE ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASSIGNED TO SUCH AUTHORITIES BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS AS THE BOARD MAY ISSUE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THOSE AUTHORITIES. THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BOARD UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) MAY AUTHORISE ANY OTHER INCOME AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFOR MANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THE OTHER INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES WHO ARE SUBORDINATE TO IT. IN ISSUING THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTIONS (1) AND (2), THE BOARD OR OTHER TAX AUTHORITY AUTHORISED BY IT MAY HAVE REGARD TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TERRITORIAL AREA; PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS; INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME; AND CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES. WITHOUT PREJUDIC E TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTIONS (1) AND (2), THE BOARD MAY, BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDER, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED AUTHORISE ANY DI RECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR TO PERFORM SUCH FUNCTIONS OF ANY OTHER INCOME AUTHORITY AS MAY BE ASSIGNED TO HIM BY THE BOARD; EMPOWER THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER TO IS 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 OF ANY SPECIFIED AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF THE DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTIONS (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 OF 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 CONCURRENTLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CERS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES, ANY AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK AMONGST THEM SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AMONGST THEM MAY DIRECT, AND, FURTHER, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULE MADE DER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH HIGHER AUTHORITY AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF ANY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL NOT APPLY. G ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION, OR IN SECTION 124, THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE,, DIRECT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT OR THING U NDER 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. ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. RIGATION LIMITED VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 1224/KOL/2019, ORDER DT. 06/09/2019 , UNDER FOR UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION OF INCOME O PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120, 124, 127 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 SECTION (1) MAY AUTHORISE ANY OTHER INCOME - TAX MANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS SECTIONS (1) AND (2), THE BOARD OR OTHER TAX AUTHORITY AUTHORISED BY IT MAY HAVE REGARD TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS (1) AND (2), THE BOARD MAY, BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDER, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED RECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR TO PERFORM SUCH FUNCTIONS OF ANY OTHER INCOME - TAX EMPOWER THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER TO IS SUE 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 OF ANY SPECIFIED AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF SECTIONS (1) AND (2) MAY, WHEREVER CONSIDERED NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPER MANAGEMENT OF THE WORK, REQUIRE TWO OR MORE ASSESSING CONCURRENTLY, THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF 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 CERS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES, ANY AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK AMONGST THEM SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AMONGST THEM MAY DIRECT, AND, FURTHER, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULE MADE DER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH HIGHER AUTHORITY AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF ANY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL NOT APPLY. G ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION, OR IN SECTION 124, THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE,, DIRECT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF NDER THIS ACT OR ANY RULE TAX AUTHORITY EXERCISING AND PERFORMING THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE SAID PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS SHALL BE SUCH 124. JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS (1) WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION 120, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEENVESTED OF SUCH AREA, HE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION (A) IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIES ON HIS BUSINES S OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE WITHIN THE AREA, OR WHERE HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, IF 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 TO WHETHER AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON, THE QUESTION SHALL BE D COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER; OR WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIE 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 FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUB SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; (B) WHER E HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 144 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMEN BEST OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. (C) WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN UNDER SECTION 132 OR SECTION 132A, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UND SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153C OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER.) (4) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB OF AN- ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM, REFER THE MATTER FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SUB (5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS CONFERRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT ON AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPEC OVER WHICH HE HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB 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 MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER, WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, AND DOING SO, TRANSFER ANY CASE FROM ONE OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS SUBORDINATE TO HIM (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT J (2) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS 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 DIRECT (A) WHERE THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS TO WHOM SUCH ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE SUBORDINATE ARE IN AGREEMENT, THEN THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER FRO M WHOSE JURISDICTION THE CASE IS TO BE TRANSFERRED MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A 9 JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OR SUB SECTION 120, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEENVESTED WITH JURISDICTION OVER ANY AREA, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, HE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION - IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIES ON S OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE WITHIN THE AREA, OR WHERE HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, IF THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE WITHIN THE IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE AREA. WHERE A QUESTION ARISES UNDER THIS SECTION AS TO WHETHER AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON, THE QUESTION SHALL BE D ETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER; OR WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIE F COMMISSIONERS 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. NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE HE HAS MADE A RETURN UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF O FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; E HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 144 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMEN T SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. (C) WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN UNDER SECTION 132 OR SECTION 132A, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UND ER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OR SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153C OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER.) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (3), WHERE AN ASSESSEE CALLS IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM, REFER THE MATTER FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS CONFERRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT ON AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPEC T OF 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 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 MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER, WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, AND AFTER RECORDING HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO, TRANSFER ANY CASE FROM ONE OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS SUBORDINATE TO HIM (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT J URISDICTION) ALSO SUBORDINATE TO HIM. (2) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS 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 DIRECT OR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, (A) WHERE THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS TO WHOM SUCH ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE SUBORDINATE ARE IN AGREEMENT, THEN THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR M WHOSE JURISDICTION THE CASE IS TO BE TRANSFERRED MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. SECTION (1) OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF WITH JURISDICTION OVER ANY AREA, WITHIN THE LIMITS IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIES ON S OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE WITHIN THE AREA, OR WHERE HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, IF THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE WITHIN THE WHERE A QUESTION ARISES UNDER THIS SECTION AS TO WHETHER AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION ETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER; OR WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE F COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED OR, IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, BY THE BOARD OR BY SUCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF O NE MONTH SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; E HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE UNDER T SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE (C) WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN UNDER SECTION 132 OR SECTION 132A, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OR SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153C OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER.) CALLS IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SECTION (2) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS CONFERRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT ON AN T OF 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 (1) THE PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF AFTER RECORDING HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO, TRANSFER ANY CASE FROM ONE OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS SUBORDINATE TO HIM (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER (2) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS 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 OR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, (A) WHERE THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS TO WHOM SUCH ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE SUBORDINATE ARE IN AGREEMENT, THEN THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR M WHOSE JURISDICTION 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 REASONS FOR DOING SO, PASS THE ORDER; (B) WHERE THE DIRECTORS AGREEMENT, THE ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE MAY, SIMILARLY, BE PASSED BY THE BOARD OR ANY SUCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE, AUTHORISE IN THIS BEHALF. (3) NOTHING IN SUB - TO BE GIVEN WHERE THE TRANSFER IS FROM ANY ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CO NCURRENT JURISDICTION) TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) AND THE OFFICES OF ALL SUCH OFFICERS ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, LOCALITY OR PLACE. (4) THE TRANSFER OF A CASE UNDER SUB PROCEEDINGS, AND SHALL NOT RENDER NECESSARY THE RE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. EXPLANATION: IN SECTION 120 NAME IS SPECIFIED IN ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION ISSUED 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 BEFORE SUCH DATE, AND INCLUDES ALSO ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION IN R 129. CHANGE OF INCUMBENT OF AN OFFICE WHENEVER IN RESPECT OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT AN INCOME JURISDICTION AND IS SUCCEEDED BY ANOTHER WHO HAS AND EXERCISES JURISDICTION, THE INCOME SUCCEEDING MAY CONTINUE THE PROCEEDING FROM THE STAGE PREDECESSOR: PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED MAY DEMAND THAT BEFORE THE PROCEEDING IS SO CONTINUED THE PREVIOUS PROCEEDING OR ANY PART THEREOF BE REOPENED OR THAT BEFORE ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS PASSED AGAIN ST HIM, HE BE REHEARD. 14. A BARE READING OF THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS REVEAL 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 U/S. 120(1) IS GIVEN BY THE BOARD, FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS 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 INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES 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 THE OTHER INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WHO ARE SUBO CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CAN BE VESTED IN MORE THAN ONE AO, WHICH IS DISCERNIBLE BY A CONJOINT READING OF SECTION 120(5) WITH SECTION 120(2) OF THE ACT. SECTION 124(1) OF THE ACT CONFERS JURISDICTION ON AN AO ORDER ISSUED BY CBDT UNDER SUB AO IS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT, OVER ANY AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, HE SHALL HA VE 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 THE AREA EAR BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, THEN IF THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL TERRITORIAL AREA, THE AO GETS JURISDICTION. OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEES WHO ARE NOT IN BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, I CASES, THE AO WILL BE VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION IF THE PERSON (ASSESSEE) IS RESIDING WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AREA EAR SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT SPEAKS AB THERE IS A QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED AS TO WHETHER AN AO HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY 10 REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER, WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, AND AFTER RECORDING HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO, PASS THE ORDER; (B) WHERE THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS AFORESAID ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE MAY, SIMILARLY, BE PASSED BY THE BOARD OR ANY SUCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE, AUTHORISE IN THIS BEHALF. - SECTION (1) OR SUB- SECTION (2) SHALL BE DEEMED TO REQUIRE ANY SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO BE GIVEN WHERE THE TRANSFER IS FROM ANY ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR NCURRENT JURISDICTION) TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) AND THE OFFICES OF ALL SUCH OFFICERS ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, (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. SECTION 120 AND THIS SECTION, THE WORD 'CASE', IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SPECIFIED IN ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION ISSUED THEREUNDER, MEANS ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE SUCH DATE, AND INCLUDES ALSO ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION IN R ESPECT OF ANY YEAR. CHANGE OF INCUMBENT OF AN OFFICE WHENEVER IN RESPECT OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT AN INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY CEASES TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION AND IS SUCCEEDED BY ANOTHER WHO HAS AND EXERCISES JURISDICTION, THE INCOME SUCCEEDING MAY CONTINUE THE PROCEEDING FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH THE PROCEEDING WAS LEFT BY HIS PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED MAY DEMAND THAT BEFORE THE PROCEEDING IS SO CONTINUED THE PREVIOUS PROCEEDING OR ANY PART THEREOF BE REOPENED OR THAT BEFORE ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS PASSED ST HIM, HE BE REHEARD. A BARE READING OF THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS REVEAL THAT AN ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED BY THE SECTION (1) OR SUB -SECTION (2) OF SECTIO N 120 OF THE ACT. THE DIRECTION U/S. 120(1) IS GIVEN BY THE BOARD, FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, AS SPECIFIED U/S. 116 OF THE ACT. AS SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT, THE BOARD MAY DELEGATE ITS POWERS TO INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES 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 THE OTHER INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WHO ARE SUBO RDINATE TO THAT AUTHORITY. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CAN BE VESTED IN MORE THAN ONE AO, WHICH IS DISCERNIBLE BY A CONJOINT READING OF SECTION 120(5) WITH SECTION 120(2) OF THE ACT. SECTION 124(1) OF THE ACT CONFERS JURISDICTION ON AN AO , BY VIRTUE OF JURISDICTION VESTED BY ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED 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 VE 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 THE AREA EAR - MARKED FOR HIM (AO); OR IF THAT PERSONS (ASSESSEES) PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, THEN IF THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL TERRITORIAL AREA, THE AO GETS JURISDICTION. OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEES WHO ARE NOT IN BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, I CASES, THE AO WILL BE VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION IF THE PERSON (ASSESSEE) IS RESIDING WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AREA EAR - MARKED BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT SPEAKS AB OUT. HOWEVER, WHEN THERE IS A QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED AS TO WHETHER AN AO HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER, WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, AND AFTER GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS AFORESAID ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE MAY, SIMILARLY, BE PASSED BY THE BOARD OR ANY SUCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE SECTION (2) SHALL BE DEEMED TO REQUIRE ANY SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO BE GIVEN WHERE THE TRANSFER IS FROM ANY ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR NCURRENT JURISDICTION) TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) AND THE OFFICES OF ALL SUCH OFFICERS ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, SECTION (2) MAY BE MADE AT ANY STAGE OF THE ISSUE OF ANY NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY THE AND THIS SECTION, THE WORD 'CASE', IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SPECIFIED IN ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION ISSUED THEREUNDER, MEANS ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE SUCH DATE, AND INCLUDES ALSO ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT WHICH ESPECT OF ANY YEAR. TAX AUTHORITY CEASES TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION AND IS SUCCEEDED BY ANOTHER WHO HAS AND EXERCISES JURISDICTION, THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY SO AT WHICH THE PROCEEDING WAS LEFT BY HIS PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED MAY DEMAND THAT BEFORE THE PROCEEDING IS SO CONTINUED THE PREVIOUS PROCEEDING OR ANY PART THEREOF BE REOPENED OR THAT BEFORE ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS PASSED A BARE READING OF THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS REVEAL THAT AN ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED BY THE N 120 OF THE ACT. THE DIRECTION U/S. 120(1) IS GIVEN BY THE BOARD, FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, AS SPECIFIED U/S. 116 OF THE ACT. AS ACT, THE BOARD MAY DELEGATE ITS POWERS TO INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES 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 THE OTHER RDINATE TO THAT AUTHORITY. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CAN BE VESTED IN MORE THAN ONE AO, WHICH IS DISCERNIBLE BY A CONJOINT READING OF SECTION 120(5) WITH SECTION 120(2) OF THE ACT. SECTION 124(1) OF THE , BY VIRTUE OF JURISDICTION VESTED BY ANY DIRECTION OR 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 VE 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 MARKED FOR HIM (AO); OR IF THAT PERSONS (ASSESSEES) PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, THEN IF THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL TERRITORIAL AREA, THE AO GETS JURISDICTION. OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEES WHO ARE NOT IN BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, I N THEIR CASES, THE AO WILL BE VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION IF THE PERSON (ASSESSEE) IS RESIDING MARKED BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER OUT. HOWEVER, WHEN THERE IS A QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED AS TO WHETHER AN AO HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON THEN IT WOULD BE DECIDED BY THE AUTHORITIES AS STIPULATED IN SUB SECTION 124 OF THE ACT BY DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIO THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED, AS THE CASE MAY BE). IN CASE, IF THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES(DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIE COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS AS STIPULATED THEREIN) THEN IF THE OTHER INCOME WILL BE RESOLVED MUTUALLY OR ELSE IT WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CBDT ASSESSEE IS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION U/S. 124 READ WITH SEC. 120(1) & (2) OF 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 AND (C) OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SEC. 124(5) SAVES THE ACTION OF THE AO WHO HAS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TERRITO 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 OF HIS TERRITO RIAL AREA AS CONFERRED TO HIM (AO) BY ORDER UNDER SUB 120 OF THE ACT AND NOT OTHERWISE. SO, THIS SAVING PROVISION WILL COME INTO PLAY ONLY IN THE FIRST PLACE THE AO IS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY AN ORDER/DIRECTION ISSUED UNDER 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 AND, THEREFORE, BOTH SECTIONS I.E. SECTIONS 120 AND 124 OF THE ACT M CONJUNCTION AND HARMONIOUSLY TO DECIDE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WHICH IS PRESCRIBED BY THE DIRECTION OR ORDERS BY THE CBDT UNDER SUB 15. HAVING TAKEN NOTE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120 & 124, SECTION 127 IS A SEPARATE CODE OF ITS OWN. SECTION 127(1) EMPOWERS, THE PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, AS STIPULATED THEREIN, TO TRANSFER AN MORE AO SUBORDINATE TO HIM. IN OTHER WORDS, UNDER SECTION 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 THE CA 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 JURIS THEREFORE WHO ARE NOT SUBORDINATE TO SUCH AUTHORITY. IN THE CASES COVERED U/S 127(2) THEREFORE, IF THE PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, OF THE AO TO WH AN ASSESSEE 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 AUTHORITIES, THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE REFERRED TO DECIDES THE ISSUE OF TRANSFER OR THE BOARD CAN THEN AUTHORIZE AN INCOME TAX AUTHORITY BY A NOTIFICATION AS STIPULATED IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUB SECTION(4) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT UP AUTHORITIES SPECIFIED IN SUB PROCEEDINGS SHALL NOT RENDER THE RE FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. THE AO FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED AND ALLOWS THE AO TO WHOM THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE IS TRANSFERRED TO TAKE FORWARD THE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE POINT WHERE THE EARLIER 11 PERSON THEN IT WOULD BE DECIDED BY THE AUTHORITIES AS STIPULATED IN SUB SECTION 124 OF THE ACT BY DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIO NERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED, AS THE CASE MAY BE). IN CASE, IF THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES(DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIE F COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS 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) OF 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 ACTION OF THE AO WHO HAS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TERRITO RIAL JURISDICTION VESTED IN HIM BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTIONS 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 RIAL 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 FIRST PLACE THE AO IS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY AN ORDER/DIRECTION ISSUED UNDER 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 AND, THEREFORE, BOTH SECTIONS I.E. SECTIONS 120 AND 124 OF THE ACT M 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. 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 COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, AS STIPULATED THEREIN, TO TRANSFER AN Y CASE FROM ONE OR MORE AO SUBORDINATE TO HIM. IN OTHER WORDS, UNDER SECTION 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 THE CA 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 JURIS THEREFORE WHO ARE NOT SUBORDINATE TO SUCH AUTHORITY. IN THE CASES COVERED U/S 127(2) THEREFORE, IF THE PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, OF THE AO TO WH AN ASSESSEE 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 AUTHORITIES, THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE REFERRED TO THE BOARD WHICH IN TURN DECIDES THE ISSUE 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 SECTION 127 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT UP ON THE TRANSFER OF CASE BY THE AUTHORITIES SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, 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 W ORDS, SECTION 127(4) SAVES THE ACTIONS OF THE AO FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED AND ALLOWS THE AO TO WHOM THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE IS TRANSFERRED TO TAKE FORWARD THE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE POINT WHERE THE EARLIER ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. PERSON THEN IT WOULD BE DECIDED BY THE AUTHORITIES AS STIPULATED IN SUB -SECTION (2) OF NERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED, AS THE CASE MAY BE). IN CASE, IF THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF F COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS AS TAX AUTHORITY ALSO AGREES THEN THE QUESTION . SO, ONCE THE AO OF AN ASSESSEE IS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION U/S. 124 READ WITH SEC. 120(1) & (2) OF THE ACT AND ISSUES STATUTORY NOTICES AGAINST AN ASSESSEE, NO PERSON (ASSESSEE) SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL 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 ACTION OF THE AO WHO HAS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME EARNED BY RIAL JURISDICTION VESTED IN HIM BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTIONS 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 SEC. (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT AND NOT OTHERWISE. SO, THIS SAVING PROVISION WILL COME INTO PLAY ONLY IN THE FIRST 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 AND, THEREFORE, BOTH SECTIONS I.E. SECTIONS 120 AND 124 OF THE ACT M UST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION AND HARMONIOUSLY TO DECIDE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WHICH IS PRESCRIBED SEC. (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT. 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 COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. Y CASE FROM ONE OR MORE AO SUBORDINATE TO HIM. IN OTHER WORDS, UNDER SECTION 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 THE CA SE 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 JURIS DICTION AND THEREFORE WHO ARE NOT SUBORDINATE TO SUCH AUTHORITY. IN THE CASES COVERED U/S 127(2) THEREFORE, IF THE PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, OF THE AO TO WH OM THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE 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 THE BOARD WHICH IN TURN DECIDES THE ISSUE OF TRANSFER OR THE BOARD CAN THEN AUTHORIZE AN INCOME TAX AUTHORITY BY SEC.(2) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT. SUB - ON THE TRANSFER OF CASE BY THE SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, ANY STAGE OF THE ISSUE OF ANY NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY THE AO OR AOS ORDS, SECTION 127(4) SAVES THE ACTIONS OF THE AO FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED 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 127 DEFINES THE EXPRESSION CASE. A READING 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, MEAN WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION 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 THIS DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION CASE IMPLIES THAT, ONCE A TRANSFER IS MADE BY THE AUTHORITY SPECIFIED IN SUB JURISDICTION OVER AN AO WHO IN TURN VIRTUE OF DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT, THEN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT OF THE PERSON I.E. PRE STAND TRANSFERRED AND TH ASSESSEE TO WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED, WILL BE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE SAID THE ASSESSEE FOR PRE AND POST PROCEEDINGS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER. IN OTHER WORDS, ONCE TRANSFE R ORDER 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 DATE OF SUCH ORDER WILL STAND TRANSFERRED, (II) ALL THE COMPLETE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER WILL STAND TRANSFERRED AND (III) ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE 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 EXAMINE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), NEW DELHI ENJOYED CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR THE AY 2015 INITIALLY VESTED WITH THE ACIT, CIRCLE 15(1), NEW DELHI SINCE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER AREA OR LIMITS OF AREA, WHERE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE WA JURISDICTION WITH THE SAID OFFICER WAS IN TERMS OF THE ORDER/ DIRECTION OF THE CBDT U/S. 120(1) OF THE ACT OR BY INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES (SEC. 116) WHO WERE DELEGATED THE POWERS TO ISSUE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS VESTING THE JURISDICTION AUTHORITIES SUBORDINATE TO IT. THE SAID ASSESSING OFFICER AT NEW DELHI ENJOYED EXCLUSIVE 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 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) DATED 08.10.2008, WE FIND THAT THE TRANSFER OF JURIS CHARGE OF ACIT, 15(1), NEW DELHI TO ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE WITHOUT RESERVING ANY RIGHT OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT AT NEW DELHI. 17. BEFORE US THE LD. CIT, DR VEHEMENTLY PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS AT NEW DELHI, THE AO, DELHI CONTINUED TO HAVE JURISDICTION AS PER SEC. 124 READ WITH SEC. 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT AND THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), DELHIS ACTION OF ISSUING THE STATUTORY NOTICE 124 OF THE ACT READ WITH SUB ACCEPT SUCH CONTENTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. FOR ADJUDICATING THIS CONTENTION, LET US FIRST EXAMINE T HE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SUB (4) OF SEC. 127 OF THE ACT, WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: 12 JURISDICTIONAL AO HAD LEFT. HERE, IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 127 DEFINES THE EXPRESSION CASE. A READING 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, MEAN S ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION 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 HAD THE JURISDICTION OVER AN AO WHO IN TURN HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE/PERSON/ENTITY, BY VIRTUE OF DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT, THEN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT OF THE PERSON I.E. PRE -TRANSFER AND POST- TRANSFER AS ON DATE OF TRANSFER WILL STAND TRANSFERRED AND TH EREAFTER 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 ASSESSEE FOR PRE AND POST PROCEEDINGS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER. IN OTHER WORDS, R ORDER 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 DATE OF SUCH ORDER WILL STAND TRANSFERRED, (II) ALL THE COMPLETE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER WILL STAND TRANSFERRED AND (III) ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER ORDER HAVE TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE NOW EXAMINE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), NEW DELHI ENJOYED CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR THE AY 2015 - 16. AS NOTED, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE INITIALLY VESTED WITH THE ACIT, CIRCLE 15(1), NEW DELHI SINCE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER AREA OR LIMITS OF AREA, WHERE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE WA S SITUATED. THE VESTING OF JURISDICTION WITH THE SAID OFFICER WAS IN TERMS OF THE ORDER/ DIRECTION OF THE CBDT U/S. 120(1) OF THE ACT OR BY INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES (SEC. 116) WHO WERE DELEGATED THE POWERS TO ISSUE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS VESTING THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSMENT OVER THE AUTHORITIES SUBORDINATE TO IT. THE SAID ASSESSING OFFICER AT NEW DELHI ENJOYED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT UPTO 08.10.2008. THEREAFTER, BY VIRTUE OF ORDER U/S 127(2) V, DELHI DATED 08.10.2008, THE SAID AO AT NEW DELHI WAS DIVESTED OF HIS JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT AND THE JURISDICTION STOOD TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF 1, RANCHI. FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE ORDER U/S 127(2) DATED 08.10.2008, WE FIND THAT THE TRANSFER OF JURIS DICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE FROM THE CHARGE OF ACIT, 15(1), NEW DELHI TO ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, RANCHI WAS ABSOLUTE AND WITHOUT RESERVING ANY RIGHT OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT AT NEW DELHI. BEFORE US THE LD. CIT, DR VEHEMENTLY CONTENTED THAT SINCE THE PRESENT ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS AT NEW DELHI, THE AO, DELHI CONTINUED TO HAVE JURISDICTION AS PER SEC. 124 READ WITH SEC. 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT AND THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), DELHIS ACTION OF ISSUING THE STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS SAVED BY SUB- SEC. (5) OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT READ WITH SUB - SECTION (4) OF SEC. 127 OF THE ACT. WE ARE HOWEVER UNABLE TO ACCEPT SUCH CONTENTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. FOR ADJUDICATING THIS CONTENTION, LET US HE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (5) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT AND SUB (4) OF SEC. 127 OF THE ACT, WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 127 DEFINES THE EXPRESSION CASE. A READING OF THE SAID EXPLANATION SHOWS THAT THE EXPRESSION CASE IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON, WHOSE NAME IS SPECIFIED IN THE TRANSFER ORDER S ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION OR IT MAY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE SUCH DATE, AND INCLUDES ALSO ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME - 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 SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT WHO HAD THE HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE/PERSON/ENTITY, BY VIRTUE OF DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT, THEN THE ENTIRE TRANSFER AS ON DATE OF TRANSFER WILL EREAFTER 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 ASSESSEE FOR PRE AND POST PROCEEDINGS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER. IN OTHER WORDS, R ORDER 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 DATE OF SUCH ORDER WILL STAND TRANSFERRED, (II) ALL THE COMPLETE D ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER WILL STAND TRANSFERRED AND (III) ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER ORDER HAVE TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE NOW EXAMINE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), NEW DELHI ENJOYED CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO ISSUE A VALID 16. AS NOTED, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE INITIALLY VESTED WITH THE ACIT, CIRCLE 15(1), NEW DELHI SINCE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION S SITUATED. THE VESTING OF JURISDICTION WITH THE SAID OFFICER WAS IN TERMS OF THE ORDER/ DIRECTION OF THE CBDT U/S. 120(1) OF THE ACT OR BY INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES (SEC. 116) WHO WERE DELEGATED THE OF ASSESSMENT OVER THE AUTHORITIES SUBORDINATE TO IT. THE SAID ASSESSING OFFICER AT NEW DELHI ENJOYED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT UPTO 08.10.2008. THEREAFTER, BY VIRTUE OF ORDER U/S 127(2) SAID AO AT NEW DELHI WAS DIVESTED OF HIS JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT AND THE JURISDICTION STOOD TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF 1, RANCHI. FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE ORDER U/S 127(2) DATED DICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE FROM THE 1, RANCHI WAS ABSOLUTE AND WITHOUT RESERVING ANY RIGHT OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT AT NEW DELHI. CONTENTED THAT SINCE THE PRESENT ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS AT NEW DELHI, THE AO, DELHI CONTINUED TO HAVE JURISDICTION AS PER SEC. 124 READ WITH SEC. 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT AND THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), DELHIS ACTION OF SEC. (5) OF SECTION SECTION (4) OF SEC. 127 OF THE ACT. WE ARE HOWEVER UNABLE TO ACCEPT SUCH CONTENTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. FOR ADJUDICATING THIS CONTENTION, LET US SECTION (5) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT AND SUB -SEC. SEC. 124 (5) :- NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE 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 ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB SEC. 127(4) :- THE TRANSFER OF A CASE UNDER SUB STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. EXPLANATION: IN SECTION 120 NAME IS SPECIFIED IN ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION ISSUED THEREUNDER, MEANS ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIR HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE SUCH DATE, AND INCLUDES ALSO ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR. 18. FROM A PLAIN READING OF SUB IT IS AN OVER- RIDING PROVISION YET IT HAS INHERENT 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 ANYT OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE ACT. THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT PROVISIONS OF SUB OTHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 THE ACT, WHICH NECESSARILY MEANS THAT NON SECTION (1) TO (4) OF SEC. 124 OR DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE ACT AND NOT WITH REGARD T O 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 COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER MAK ES AN ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, FROM AN AO WHO IS VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB 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 TRANSFER 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 AWAY AND THUS THE ORIGINAL AO IS DIVESTED OF THE JURISDICTION ENJOYED U/S. 124 READ WITH SUB THEREFORE HOLD THAT CONTENTION PUT FORTH BY THE LD. CIT, DR THAT PROVISIONS OF 124(5) BEING OVERRIDING IN NATURE, THE ACIT CIRCLE 21(1), NEW DELHI SIMULTANEOUSLY HELD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. SUCH INTERPRETATION IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE EXTANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(5) READ WITH SECTION 127 OF THE ONCE AN ORDER U/S 127(2) WAS PASSED ON 08.10.2008 BY THE LD. CIT 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 JURI ACIT AT NEW DELHI IN TERMS OF SECTION 124 READ WITH SECTION 120(1) & (2) STOOD ABROGATED. ACCORDINGLY AFTER 08.10.2008, THE ACIT AT NEW DELHI COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED ANY POWERS CONFERRED ON THE AO BY THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY PR AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 19. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE TRANSFER ORDER PASSED BY THELD. CIT DELHI U/S. 127 DATED 08.10.2008, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED WITH 13 NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE 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 VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS SECTION (1) OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120. 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. SECTION 120 AND THIS SECTION, THE WORD 'CASE', IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SPECIFIED IN ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION ISSUED THEREUNDER, MEANS ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIR HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE SUCH DATE, AND INCLUDES ALSO ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR. FROM A PLAIN READING OF SUB -SEC. (5) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT, IT IS NOTED THAT THOUGH RIDING PROVISION YET IT HAS INHERENT LIMITATION AS PRESCRIBED IN LAW. IF ONE SECTION (5) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT, THEN IT WILL BE NOTED THAT IT STARTS WITH THE WORDS NOTWITHSTANDING ANYT HING 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 PROVISIONS OF SUB - SEC. (5) OF SECTION 124 OVERRIDES ONLY THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 24 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 SECTION (1) TO (4) OF SEC. 124 OR DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE ACT AND O 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 COMMISSIONER OR ES AN ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, FROM AN AO WHO IS VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT TO 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 TRANSFER 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 SEC. 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT IS TAKEN AWAY 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 PUT FORTH BY THE LD. CIT, DR THAT PROVISIONS OF 124(5) BEING OVERRIDING IN NATURE, THE ACIT CIRCLE 21(1), NEW DELHI SIMULTANEOUSLY HELD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. SUCH INTERPRETATION IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE EXTANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(5) READ WITH SECTION 127 OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION ONCE AN ORDER U/S 127(2) WAS PASSED ON 08.10.2008 BY THE LD. CIT 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 JURI SDICTION ENJOYED BY ACIT AT NEW DELHI IN TERMS OF SECTION 124 READ WITH SECTION 120(1) & (2) STOOD ABROGATED. ACCORDINGLY AFTER 08.10.2008, THE ACIT AT NEW DELHI COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED ANY POWERS CONFERRED ON THE AO BY THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY PR IN THIS REGARD WE FIND THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE TRANSFER ORDER PASSED BY THELD. CIT DELHI U/S. 127 DATED 08.10.2008, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED WITH ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE 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 VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS SECTION (2) MAY BE MADE AT ANY ISSUE OF ANY NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. AND THIS SECTION, THE WORD 'CASE', IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SPECIFIED IN ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION ISSUED THEREUNDER, MEANS ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHICH MAY BE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIR ECTION OR WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE SUCH DATE, AND INCLUDES ALSO ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR. OF THE ACT, IT IS NOTED THAT THOUGH RIDING PROVISION YET IT HAS INHERENT LIMITATION AS PRESCRIBED IN LAW. IF ONE SECTION (5) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT, THEN IT WILL BE NOTED THAT IT STARTS HING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE ACT. THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE SEC. (5) OF SECTION 124 OVERRIDES ONLY THE 24 OF THE ACT AND ANY ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ISSUED U/S. 120 OF OBSTANTE CLAUSE IS LIMITED TO OPERATION OF SUB - SECTION (1) TO (4) OF SEC. 124 OR DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE ACT AND O 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 COMMISSIONER OR ES AN ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, FROM AN AO WHO IS VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT TO 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 TRANSFER 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 SEC. 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT IS TAKEN AWAY AND THUS THE ORIGINAL AO IS DIVESTED OF THE SEC. (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT CONTENTION PUT FORTH BY THE LD. CIT, DR THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(5) BEING OVERRIDING IN NATURE, THE ACIT CIRCLE 21(1), NEW DELHI SIMULTANEOUSLY HELD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. SUCH INTERPRETATION IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH ACT. IN OUR OPINION ONCE AN ORDER 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 SDICTION ENJOYED BY ACIT AT NEW DELHI IN TERMS OF SECTION 124 READ WITH SECTION 120(1) & (2) STOOD ABROGATED. ACCORDINGLY AFTER 08.10.2008, THE ACIT AT NEW DELHI COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED ANY POWERS CONFERRED ON THE AO BY THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY PR OCEEDINGS IN THIS REGARD WE FIND THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE TRANSFER ORDER PASSED BY THELD. CIT -V, DELHI U/S. 127 DATED 08.10.2008, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. PURSUANT TO SUCH AN ORDER, THE DC AO WHO ALONE HAD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS 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 JURIS 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 APPELLANTS WHO COULD HAVE ISSUED A VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR THE RELEVANT AY 2015 THEREFORE HAVE NO QUARREL WITH THE PROPOSITION PUT FORTH BY THE LD. CIT, DR THAT WHEN THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), 127(2) DATED 03.11.2017, HE HAD NO OBLIGATION TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE U/S 143(2) BECAUSE HE COULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH HIS PREDECESSOR WOULD HAV ORIGINAL NOTICE 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 THE ASSESSEES C ASE WAS VESTED IN ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RANCHI, HE NEVER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2). ON THE CONTRARY THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), DELHI WHO, AS HELD EARLIER, CEASED TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE AFTER 08.10.2008. SINCE NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO, RANCHI WITHIN THE STIPULATED 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 PA 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, DELHI BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND BY VIRTUE OF IT EVEN HIS SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY I.E. AO, DELHI WAS ALSO DIVESTED OF THE REASONS AS DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANTS CASE WAS NOT SAVED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(5) AS ALSO BY SECTION 127(4) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CONTENTIONS OF BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT 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 OPEN FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN M/S. RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (INFRA) CLEARLY HELD THAT, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE THE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 BY NO OTHER THAN THE CIT KOLKATA KOLKATA II , KOLKATA LOST THE SEISIN OVER THE MATTER. HE BECAME [EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US] THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT, DR THAT THE JURISDICTION IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE AND NOT A SUBJECT MATTER STANDS NEGATED IN THE LIGHT OF THE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT'S SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS (SUPRA). 21. COMING TO THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT, DR 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 ASSE SUB- SECTION (3) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT. WE HOWEVER NOTE THAT SUB 124 OF THE ACT WILL COME INTO PLAY ONLY WHEN A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER AN AO HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS A NY PERSON U/S. 124 OF THE ACT AND THE AO DERIVES HIS POWERS FROM THE DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED BY CBDT AND/OR AUTHORITIES UNDER SUB 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 14 IMMEDIATE EFFECT. PURSUANT TO SUCH AN ORDER, THE DC IT, CENTRAL CIRCLE RANCHI BECAME THE AO WHO ALONE HAD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS 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 JURIS DICTION 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 APPELLANTS CASE AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER IT WAS ONLY THIS AO WHO COULD HAVE ISSUED A VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR THE RELEVANT AY 2015 THEREFORE HAVE NO QUARREL WITH 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 03.11.2017, HE HAD NO OBLIGATION TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE U/S 143(2) BECAUSE HE COULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH HIS PREDECESSOR WOULD HAV E LEFT. HOWEVER THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION PRE- SUPPOSES THAT THE ORIGINAL NOTICE 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 ASE WAS VESTED IN ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RANCHI, HE NEVER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2). ON THE CONTRARY THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), DELHI WHO, AS HELD EARLIER, CEASED TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE AFTER 08.10.2008. SINCE NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO, RANCHI WITHIN THE STIPULATED 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 PA V, DELHI ON 08.10.2008, SO AFTER SUCH ORDER BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY (WHICH FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US), THEN THE CIT, DELHI BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND BY VIRTUE OF IT EVEN HIS SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY I.E. AO, DELHI WAS ALSO DIVESTED OF THE JURISDICTION. FOR THE REASONS AS DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANTS CASE WAS 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 MERIT IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. COMING TO THE NEXT ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT, DR THAT JURISDICTION IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE AND NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OPEN FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN M/S. RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (INFRA) 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 LOST THE SEISIN OVER THE MATTER. HE BECAME THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT, DR THAT THE JURISDICTION IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE AND NOT A SUBJECT MATTER STANDS NEGATED IN THE LIGHT OF THE AL HIGH COURT'S SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS (SUPRA). COMING TO THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT, DR 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 ASSE SSEE IS ESTOPPED/SHUT- OUT FROM DOING SO AS STIPULATED BY SECTION (3) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT. WE HOWEVER NOTE THAT SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT WILL COME INTO PLAY ONLY WHEN A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER AN AO HAS NY PERSON U/S. 124 OF THE ACT AND THE AO DERIVES HIS POWERS FROM THE DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED 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 AN AO ASSUMES JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT BY VIRTUE OF THE JURISDICTION VESTED ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. IT, CENTRAL CIRCLE RANCHI BECAME THE AO WHO ALONE HAD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE TILL EVEN HE WAS DIVESTED OF SUCH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER PASSED U/S. 127(2)BY THEPR.CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA DICTION 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 CASE AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER IT WAS ONLY THIS AO WHO COULD HAVE ISSUED A VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR THE RELEVANT AY 2015 -16. WE THEREFORE HAVE NO QUARREL WITH THE PROPOSITION PUT FORTH BY THE LD. CIT, DR THAT WHEN THE KOLKATA RECEIVED THE CASE RECORDS IN TERMS OF THE ORDER U/S 127(2) DATED 03.11.2017, HE HAD NO OBLIGATION TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE U/S 143(2) BECAUSE HE COULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH HIS SUPPOSES THAT THE ORIGINAL NOTICE 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 ASE WAS VESTED IN ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RANCHI, HE NEVER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2). ON THE CONTRARY THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE 21(1), DELHI WHO, AS HELD EARLIER, CEASED TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE AFTER 08.10.2008. SINCE NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO, RANCHI WITHIN THE STIPULATED 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 PA SSED BY V, DELHI ON 08.10.2008, SO AFTER SUCH ORDER BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY (WHICH FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US), THEN THE CIT, DELHI BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND BY VIRTUE OF IT JURISDICTION. FOR THE REASONS AS DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANTS CASE WAS NOT SAVED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(5) AS ALSO BY THE LD. CIT, DR ARE REJECTED COMING TO THE NEXT ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT, DR THAT JURISDICTION IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE AND NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OPEN FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN M/S. RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (INFRA) HAS TO BE CONFERRED BY LAW. THE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, II, KOLKATA HIMSELF. ONCE THAT WAS DONE CIT , KOLKATA LOST THE SEISIN OVER THE MATTER. HE BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO . THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT, DR THAT THE JURISDICTION IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE AND NOT A SUBJECT MATTER STANDS NEGATED IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMING TO THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT, DR THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT QUESTION THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE AO AT DELHI AFTER IT RECEIVED STATUTORY NOTICE OUT FROM DOING SO AS STIPULATED BY SECTION (3) OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT WILL COME INTO PLAY ONLY WHEN A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER AN AO HAS NY PERSON U/S. 124 OF THE ACT AND THE AO DERIVES HIS POWERS FROM SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION ARISES IN THE AN AO ASSUMES JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT BY VIRTUE OF THE JURISDICTION VESTED BY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED BY CBDT AND/OR OTHER AUTHORITIES UNDER SUB (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY, THEN ASSESSEE IS ESTOPPED FROM RAISING AN OB TO THE JURISDICTION, AFTER THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB THE ACT LAPSES. THIS HOWEVER IS NOT THE FACT OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. ADMITTEDLY THE AO AT DELHI WHO HAD ENJOYED JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT BY VIRTUE O ISSUED BY CBDT AND/OR AUTHORITIES UNDER SUB WAS LEGALLY DIVESTED OF HIS JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT DATED 08.10.2008, AND THEREAFTER AO ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION THEREFORE 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 AU THERE IS A REASON FOR SAYING SO WHEN THE TRANSFER 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 PLACE (SEE SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT)] AND AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE AT HAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BY COMMISSIONER 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 THE CAS E OF ASSESSEE FROM AO AT DELHI TO AO AT RANCHI. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEREFORE, 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 DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 AND SECTION 124 OF THE 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 VI 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 OFFICER AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER I.E. 08.10.2008 AND THEREFORE HE (I.E. AO AT NEW DELHI) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE NOTICES UPON THE ASSESSEE UNLESS HE HAD BEEN RE 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 ( DELHI) COULD NOT HAVE USURPED THE JURISDICTION WHEN HIS PREDECESSOR I.E. DCIT, CIRCLE 15(1), NEW DELHI WAS DIVESTED OF IT, BY ORDER DATED 08.10.2008 BY CIT 127 OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE A DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, RANCHI SUCCEEDED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE JURISDICTION CONTINUED TO VEST IN HIM (AO RANCHI) TILL IT WAS LEGALLY TAKEN AWAY BY ORDER U/S. 127 DATED 03.11.2017 BY PR. CIT, CENTRA 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 SINC JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE. IN OUR 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 UN 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 THAT THERE ARE OVERLAPPING/CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN RESPECT TO THE TERRITORIAL AND PECUNIARY JURISDICTION OF THE AO AND, THEREFORE, THE AO HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE 15 BY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED BY CBDT AND/OR OTHER AUTHORITIES UNDER SUB (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY, THEN ASSESSEE IS ESTOPPED FROM RAISING AN OB TO THE 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 JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT BY VIRTUE O F DIRECTION 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 VIRTUE 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 THEREFORE 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 AU THORITY U/S. 127 OF THE ACT AS FAR BACK AS IN 2008. THERE IS A REASON FOR SAYING SO WHEN THE TRANSFER 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 TRANSFERRED ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, LOCALITY OR SECTION (3) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT)] AND AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THAT IN THE PRESENT 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 E OF ASSESSEE FROM AO AT DELHI TO AO AT RANCHI. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEREFORE, 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 DIRECTION OR ORDER SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 AND SECTION 124 OF THE ACT STOOD DIVESTED . 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 VI OF TRANSFER ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT, THE EARLIER AO, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS AO AT DELHI 15, NEW DELHI) CEASED TO BE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER I.E. 08.10.2008 AND THEREFORE HE (I.E. AO AT NEW DELHI) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE NOTICES UPON THE ASSESSEE UNLESS HE HAD BEEN 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 DELHI) COULD NOT HAVE USURPED THE JURISDICTION WHEN HIS PREDECESSOR I.E. DCIT, CIRCLE 15(1), NEW DELHI WAS DIVESTED OF IT, BY ORDER DATED 08.10.2008 BY CIT - 127 OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE A CT I.E., W.E.F. FROM 08.10.2008, THE 1, RANCHI SUCCEEDED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE JURISDICTION CONTINUED TO VEST IN HIM (AO RANCHI) TILL IT WAS LEGALLY TAKEN AWAY BY ORDER U/S. 127 DATED 03.11.2017 BY PR. CIT, CENTRA L PATNA AND TRANSFERRED TO ACIT, CENTRAL 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 SINC E IN THE FIRST PLACE AO AT DELHI LEGALLY ENJOYED JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE. IN OUR 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 UN DER SECTION 143(2) TO THE ASSESSEE, 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. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. CIT, DR TOOK PAINS TO CONVINCE US THAT THERE ARE OVERLAPPING/CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN RESPECT TO THE TERRITORIAL AND PECUNIARY JURISDICTION OF THE AO AND, THEREFORE, THE AO HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI HAVING ISSUED THE NOTICE ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. BY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED BY CBDT AND/OR OTHER AUTHORITIES UNDER SUB -SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY, THEN ASSESSEE IS ESTOPPED FROM RAISING AN OB JECTION SECTION (3) OF SEC. 124 OF THE ACT LAPSES. THIS HOWEVER IS NOT THE FACT OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. ADMITTEDLY THE AO AT F DIRECTION OR ORDER SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE ACT WAS LEGALLY DIVESTED OF HIS JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANTS CASE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER AT DELHI COULD NOT HAVE SUO MOTO ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION THEREFORE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 124(3) DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY SINCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THORITY U/S. 127 OF THE ACT AS FAR BACK AS IN 2008. THERE IS A REASON FOR SAYING SO WHEN THE TRANSFER OF AN ASSESSEE'S CASE AS ENVISAGED U/S. 127 OCCURS, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY GIVES REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TRANSFERRED ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, LOCALITY OR SECTION (3) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT)] AND AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE AT HAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE 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 E OF ASSESSEE FROM AO AT DELHI TO AO AT RANCHI. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEREFORE, 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 DIRECTION OR ORDER SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SEC. 120 AND SECTION 124 OF THE ACT STOOD DIVESTED . 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 VI RTUE OF TRANSFER ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT, THE EARLIER AO, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS AO AT DELHI 15, NEW DELHI) CEASED TO BE ASSESSING OFFICER 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 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 ACIT, CIRCLE -21 (1), NEW DELHI) COULD NOT HAVE USURPED THE JURISDICTION WHEN HIS PREDECESSOR I.E. DCIT, CIRCLE - - V, NEW DELHI U/S. CT I.E., W.E.F. FROM 08.10.2008, THE 1, RANCHI SUCCEEDED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE JURISDICTION CONTINUED TO VEST IN HIM (AO RANCHI) TILL IT WAS LEGALLY TAKEN AWAY BY ORDER L PATNA AND TRANSFERRED TO ACIT, CENTRAL 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 - E IN THE FIRST PLACE AO AT DELHI LEGALLY ENJOYED JURISDICTION U/S. 124 OF THE ACT OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY HELP THE DEPARTMENT TO JUSTIFY THE ACTION OF AO AT DER SECTION 143(2) TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS AN ACTION WITHOUT JURISDICTION. SO THE CHALLENGE RAISED BY THE LD CIT, DR FAILS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY US, THE LD. CIT, DR TOOK PAINS TO CONVINCE US THAT THERE ARE OVERLAPPING/CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN RESPECT TO THE TERRITORIAL AND PECUNIARY JURISDICTION OF THE AO AND, THEREFORE, THE AO HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AT RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI HAVING ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS EMPOWERED TO DO SO SINCE THE ACIT, CIRCLE ENJOYED THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CONFERRED U/S. 120/124 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE ON SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF THE CASE TO ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(1), KOLKATA, THERE WAS NO NEED TO RE OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF SEC. 127(4) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS HE RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS. WE HOWEVER FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THESE DECISIONS THE COURTS WERE CALLED UPON TO EXAMINE THE IMPLICATIONS 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 W AS CONFERRED ON SOME OTHER OFFICER AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 127 OF 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 JURISDICTION 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 FACTS OF THE SAID CASE M/S. RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. PR. CIT CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: SL. NO. DATE 1. 21 ST MAY, 2010 2. 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 3. 18 TH MARCH, 2013 4. 29 TH JULY, 2013 5. 18 TH MARCH, 2013 6. 26 TH MARCH, 2013 16 U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS EMPOWERED TO DO SO SINCE THE ACIT, CIRCLE ENJOYED THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CONFERRED U/S. 120/124 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE ON SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF THE CASE BY THE PR. CIT, CENTRAL PATNA BY ORDER DATED 24.10.2017 3(1), KOLKATA, THERE WAS NO NEED TO RE - ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF SEC. 127(4) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS HE RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS. WE HOWEVER NOTE THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT, DR WERE FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THESE DECISIONS THE COURTS WERE CALLED UPON TO EXAMINE THE IMPLICATIONS ARISING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120 AND 124 OF THE ACT AND THE FACTS 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 AS CONFERRED ON SOME OTHER OFFICER AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 127 OF 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 MATRIX GOVERNING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION WAS SIMILAR. IN THAT CASE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER WHO USURPED THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION 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 FACTS OF THE SAID CASE M/S. RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. PR. CIT CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: EVENTS MAY, 2010 ASSESSMENT U/S. 147/143(3) BY ITO, WD KOLKATA (FOR AY 2008-09). SEPTEMBER, 2012 CIT, KOLKATA- II TRANSFERRED THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE TO ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- XIX, KOLKATA FOR BETTER CO EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT, CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 17 TH NOVEMBER 2011 UPON M/S. ATHA MINES (AY 2012-13). MARCH, 2013 ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- XIX, KOLKATA ISSUED SEC. 143(2) NOTICE TO ASSESSEE JULY, 2013 ACTUAL TRANSFER OF FILES TOOK PLACE FROM ITO, WD- 4(1), KOLKATA TO ACIT/DCIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-XIX, KOLKATA. MARCH, 2013 NOTICE U/S. 263 ISSUED BY CIT, KOLKATA PROPOSING TO INTERFERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ITO, WD- 4(1), KOLKATA DATED 21 MAY, 2010 (AY 2008-09). MARCH, 2013 CIT- II, KOLKATA PASSED THE ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ITO, WAD 21 ST MAY, 2010 FOR AY 2008-09. ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS EMPOWERED TO DO SO SINCE THE ACIT, CIRCLE -21(1), DELHI ENJOYED THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CONFERRED U/S. 120/124 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE ON BY THE PR. CIT, CENTRAL PATNA BY ORDER DATED 24.10.2017 ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF SEC. 127(4) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS HE RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL NOTE THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT, DR WERE FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THESE DECISIONS THE COURTS WERE CALLED UPON TO EXAMINE THE IMPLICATIONS ARISING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120 AND 124 OF THE ACT AND THE FACTS 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 AS CONFERRED ON SOME OTHER OFFICER AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 127 OF 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 MATRIX GOVERNING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION WAS SIMILAR. IN THAT CASE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER WHO USURPED THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION 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 FACTS OF THE SAID CASE M/S. RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. PR. CIT CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: - ASSESSMENT U/S. 147/143(3) BY ITO, WD -4(1), II TRANSFERRED THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE TO ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL XIX, KOLKATA FOR BETTER CO -ORDINATION, EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT, CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 2011 UPON M/S. ATHA MINES XIX, KOLKATA ISSUED ACTUAL TRANSFER OF FILES TOOK PLACE FROM ITO, 4(1), KOLKATA TO ACIT/DCIT, CENTRA L NOTICE U/S. 263 ISSUED BY CIT, KOLKATA -II PROPOSING TO INTERFERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 4(1), KOLKATA DATED 21 ST II, KOLKATA PASSED THE ORDER U/S. 263 SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ITO, WAD -4(1) DATED 23. THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT RAMSHILA,]OBJECTING TO THE JURISDICTION OF CIT NOT ICE U/S. 263 AND THEREAFTER PASSED ORDER U/S. 263 DATED 26 2008- 09. THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID REVISION ORDER WAS UPHELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE DEFINITION OF CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC.127 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 SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, SU CASES.THE COMMISSIONER TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION HAS POWER TO TRANSFER ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT, WHICH ARE PENDING, COMPLETED OR WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE DOE CASE FOR WHICH REQUEST WAS MADE, THEREBY, LEAVING THE JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OTHER CASES PERTAINING TO AN ASSESSEE TO BE EXERCISED BY THE AO/CIT WHO ALREADY HAD IT.THE POWER TO DO 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 DEFEATS THE VERY PURPOSE OF CONFERRING A LARGER POWER.A 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 RE SPECT 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 REGARD IS HELD T AND NOT UNACCEPTABLE. 24. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE M/S.RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF THAT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WAS FRAMED AS UNDER: WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME 2013 AND PASSING OF THE ORDER ON 26TH MARCH, 2013 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN SPITE OF TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLKATA VIDE AN ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 UNDER SECTION 127 (2)(A) OF THE SAID ACT AND ITS PURPORTED FINDINGS IN THAT BEHALF 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 5 46 (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 O ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT, REMAINED UNCHANGED. THEREFORE, THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE WAS VALIDLY PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 17 THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT - II, KOLKATA WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE [M/S RAMSHILA,]OBJECTING TO THE JURISDICTION OF CIT - II, KOLKATA WHO HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE ICE U/S. 263 AND THEREAFTER PASSED ORDER U/S. 263 DATED 26 TH MARCH, 2013 FOR AY 09. THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID REVISION ORDER WAS UPHELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE DEFINITION OF CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC.127 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 SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, SU CH AS PROPER CO CASES.THE COMMISSIONER TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION HAS POWER TO TRANSFER ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT, WHICH ARE PENDING, COMPLETED OR WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE DOE S NOT HAVE POWERS TO RESTRICT HIS ORDER OF TRANSFER ONLY TO A PARTICULAR CASE FOR WHICH REQUEST WAS MADE, THEREBY, LEAVING THE JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OTHER CASES PERTAINING TO AN ASSESSEE TO BE EXERCISED BY THE AO/CIT WHO ALREADY HAD IT.THE POWER TO DO 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 DEFEATS THE VERY PURPOSE OF CONFERRING A LARGER POWER.A S THE ACTUAL TRANSFER OF THE FILES FROM 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 SPECT 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 REGARD IS HELD T O BE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE AND NOT UNACCEPTABLE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE M/S.RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW RAISING THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE SIMILAR TO THAT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WAS FRAMED AS UNDER: - WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 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 MARCH, 2013 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN SPITE OF TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLKATA VIDE DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 UNDER SECTION 127 (2)(A) OF THE SAID ACT AND ITS PURPORTED FINDINGS IN THAT BEHALF ARE ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND PERVERSE?. IN THIS CASE WHICH IS REPORTED AS M/S.RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. PR. CIT 46 (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 O F THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD- 4(1), KOLKATA WAS TRANSFERRED TO ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -XIX, KOLKATA, 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 CHANGED. THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY REMAINED UNCHANGED. THEREFORE, THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE WAS VALIDLY PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX. ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. II, KOLKATA WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE [M/S II, KOLKATA WHO HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE MARCH, 2013 FOR AY 09. THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID REVISION ORDER WAS UPHELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFINITION OF CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC.127 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 CH AS PROPER CO -ORDINATION OF SEARCH CASES.THE COMMISSIONER TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION HAS POWER TO TRANSFER ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT, WHICH ARE PENDING, COMPLETED OR WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER, BUT THAT S NOT HAVE POWERS TO RESTRICT HIS ORDER OF TRANSFER ONLY TO A PARTICULAR CASE FOR WHICH REQUEST WAS MADE, THEREBY, LEAVING THE JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OTHER CASES PERTAINING TO 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 S THE ACTUAL TRANSFER OF THE FILES FROM 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 SPECT 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 O BE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE M/S.RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, LAW RAISING THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE SIMILAR TO WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -II, OF ISSUE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 18TH MARCH, 2013 AND PASSING OF THE ORDER ON 26TH MARCH, 2013 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN SPITE OF TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLKATA VIDE DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 UNDER SECTION 127 (2)(A) OF THE SAID ACT AND ITS PURPORTED IN THIS CASE WHICH IS REPORTED AS M/S.RAMSHILA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. PR. CIT 46 (CAL), WE NOTE THAT THE GIST OF DEPARTMENTS CONTENTION WAS TAKEN MR. GHOSAL, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER ORDER 4(1), KOLKATA WAS TRANSFERRED TO TAX REMAINED UNCHANGED. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS THE WHICH WAS CHANGED. THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY REMAINED UNCHANGED. THEREFORE, THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE WAS VALIDLY PASSED BY THE 26. PER CONTRA; IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE EXPLANAT APPENDED TO SECTION 127 OF THE ACT THAT THE EXPRESSION TRANSFER OF A CASE WOULD MEAN ALL PENDING AND FUTURE PROCEEDINGS AND IN THAT CASE IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT TRIBUNAL ALSO AGREED THAT ONLY CIT, CENTRAL, KOLKATA HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PENDING CA FUTURE CASES.THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS UNDER: MR.PODDAR, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO AN ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 APPEARING AT PAGE 584 OF THE ADDITIONAL PAPERS FILED BY H SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY NO OTHER THAN THE CIT, KOLKATA IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263, TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION OVER FIVE ASSESSEES INCLUDING THE APPELLANT BEFORE US TO THE BETTER COORDINATION, EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 17TH NOVEMBER, 2011 AGAINST THE BUSINESS CONCERN OF ATHA MINES. MR.PODDAR CONTE NDED THAT THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS NOT IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ATHA MINES GROUP. BUT THE POINT OF SUBSTANCE IS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 WAS PASSED BY THE CIT, KOLKATA KOLKATA IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE JURISDICTION HAD ALREADY B IN- OFFICE 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 EXERCISED IN RESPECT OF THE RETURN OR EXERCISE OF POWER WAS NOT ONLY EX PARTE, WITHOUT NOTICE, BUT WAS ALSO WITHOUT JURISDICTION. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 18TH MARCH, 2013 RECEIVED BY HIS CLIENT FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME YEAR 2012- 2013. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION TO A ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE UPON.THEREFORE, CIT, KOLKATA PASSED BY HIM IS ALTOGETHER WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS, THEREFORE, A NULLITY. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO A JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDURANG AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REPORTED IN (1986) 4 SCC436FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN A RIGHT ORDER BY A WRONG FORUM IS A NULLITY.IN THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT THEIR LORDS 4.WHEN A MATTER REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IS DECIDED BY A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, THE JUDGMENT WOULD BE A NULLITY, THE MATTER HAVING BEEN HEARD BY A COURT WHICH HAD NO COMPETENCE TO HEAR THE MATTER, IT JURISDICTION.THE ACCUSED WAS ENTITLED TO BE HEARD BY AT LEAST TWO LEARNED JUDGES CONSTITUTING A DIVISION BENCH AND HAD A RIGHT TO CLAIM A VERDICT AS REGARDS HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE AT THE HANDS OF THE TWO LEARNED JUDGES.THIS BY AMENDING THE RULES.SO 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 OTHERWISE.DELIBERATELY, IT CANNOT BE INVOKED AS AN ALIBI, NOR CAN CURE THE INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY, SO AS TO ROB THE ACCUSED OF HIS RIGHT UNDER THE RULES.WHAT CAN BE DONE ONLY BY AT LEAST TWO LEARNED JUDGES CANNOT BE DONE BY ONE LEARNED JUDGE.EVEN IF THE DECISIO LACKING IN COMPETENCE WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT MATTER.EVEN A RIGHT DECISION BY A WRONG FORUM IS NO DECISION.IT IS NON JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL IS THEREFOR 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 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AND SEND THE MATTER BACK TO BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT, WHICH WILL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE SIDES AND DISPOSE IT OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, EXPEDITIOUSLY. HE ALSO RELIED UPON A DIVISION BENCH JUDGEMENT OF TH WORKS REPORTED IN (1980) 125 ITR491(CAL) WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING VIEW WAS EXPRESSED (PAGE 505): SO WHEN THE JURISDICTION IS VALIDLY REMOVED BY A COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE, THE ORIGINA 18 PER CONTRA; IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE EXPLANAT APPENDED TO SECTION 127 OF THE ACT THAT THE EXPRESSION TRANSFER OF A CASE WOULD MEAN ALL PENDING AND FUTURE PROCEEDINGS AND IN THAT CASE IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT TRIBUNAL ALSO AGREED THAT ONLY CIT, CENTRAL, KOLKATA HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PENDING CA FUTURE CASES.THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS UNDER: MR.PODDAR, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO AN ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 APPEARING AT PAGE 584 OF THE ADDITIONAL PAPERS FILED BY H IM, 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, TRANSFERRING 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, EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 17TH NOVEMBER, 2011 AGAINST THE BUSINESS CONCERN OF ATHA MINES. MR.PODDAR NDED THAT THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS NOT IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ATHA MINES GROUP. BUT THE POINT OF SUBSTANCE IS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 WAS PASSED BY THE CIT, KOLKATA KOLKATA IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE JURISDICTION HAD ALREADY B EEN TRANSFERRED BY HIS PREDECESSOR OFFICE BY HIS ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. MR.PODDER CONTENDED THAT II, KOLKATA THEREAFTER HAD NO LONGER ANY JURISDICTION LEFT WITH HIM TO BE EXERCISED 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 JURISDICTION. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 18TH MARCH, 2013 RECEIVED BY HIS CLIENT FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, WHICH IS A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT 2013. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION TO A ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -XIX, KOLKATA HAD ALREADY BECOME OPERATIVE AND WAS ALSO ACTED UPON.THEREFORE, CIT, KOLKATA - II, KOLKATA COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED JURISDICTION.THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY HIM IS ALTOGETHER WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS, THEREFORE, A NULLITY. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO A JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDURANG AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REPORTED IN (1986) 4 SCC436FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN A RIGHT ORDER BY A WRONG FORUM IS A NULLITY.IN THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT THEIR LORDS HIP HELD AS FOLLOWS: 4.WHEN A MATTER REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IS DECIDED BY A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, THE JUDGMENT WOULD BE A NULLITY, THE MATTER HAVING BEEN HEARD BY A COURT WHICH HAD NO COMPETENCE TO HEAR THE MATTER, IT BEING A MATTER OF TOTAL LACK OF JURISDICTION.THE ACCUSED WAS ENTITLED TO BE HEARD BY AT LEAST TWO LEARNED JUDGES CONSTITUTING A DIVISION BENCH AND HAD 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.SO 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 OTHERWISE.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 UNDER THE RULES.WHAT CAN BE DONE ONLY BY AT LEAST TWO LEARNED JUDGES CANNOT BE DONE BY ONE LEARNED JUDGE.EVEN IF THE DECISIO N IS RIGHT ON MERITS, IT IS BY A FORUM WHICH IS LACKING IN COMPETENCE WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT MATTER.EVEN A RIGHT DECISION BY A WRONG FORUM IS NO DECISION.IT IS NON - EXISTENT IN THE EYE OF LAW.AND HENCE A NULLITY.THE JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL IS THEREFOR E NO JUDGMENT IN THE EYE OF LAW.THIS 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 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AND SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE HIGH COURT FOR BEING PLACED BEFORE A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT, WHICH WILL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE SIDES AND DISPOSE IT OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, EXPEDITIOUSLY. HE ALSO RELIED UPON A DIVISION BENCH JUDGEMENT OF TH IS COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS/. ASHOKE GLASS WORKS REPORTED IN (1980) 125 ITR491(CAL) WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING VIEW WAS EXPRESSED (PAGE 505): SO WHEN THE JURISDICTION IS VALIDLY REMOVED BY A COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE, THE ORIGINA L COURT OR ANY TRIBUNAL OR AUTHORITY IN SUCH EVENT WILL ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. PER CONTRA; IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE EXPLANAT ION APPENDED TO SECTION 127 OF THE ACT THAT THE EXPRESSION TRANSFER OF A CASE WOULD MEAN ALL PENDING AND FUTURE PROCEEDINGS AND IN THAT CASE IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT TRIBUNAL ALSO AGREED THAT ONLY CIT, CENTRAL, KOLKATA HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PENDING CA SES 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 ATTENTION TO AN ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 IM, WHICH IS AN ORDER PASSED UNDER II, KOLKATA, WHO PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263, TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION OVER FIVE ASSESSEES INCLUDING THE ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE XIX, KOLKATA IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR BETTER COORDINATION, EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 17TH NOVEMBER, 2011 AGAINST THE BUSINESS CONCERN OF ATHA MINES. MR.PODDAR NDED THAT THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS NOT IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ATHA MINES GROUP. BUT THE POINT OF SUBSTANCE IS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 WAS PASSED BY THE CIT, KOLKATA -II, EEN TRANSFERRED BY HIS PREDECESSOR - OFFICE BY HIS ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. MR.PODDER CONTENDED THAT II, KOLKATA THEREAFTER HAD NO LONGER ANY JURISDICTION LEFT WITH HIM TO BE EXERCISED IN 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 JURISDICTION. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 18TH MARCH, 2013 RECEIVED BY HIS CLIENT FROM THE DEPUTY TAX, WHICH IS A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT 2013. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION BECOME OPERATIVE AND WAS ALSO ACTED II, KOLKATA COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED JURISDICTION.THE IMPUGNED ORDER HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO A JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDURANG AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REPORTED IN (1986) 4 SCC436FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN A RIGHT ORDER BY A HIP HELD AS FOLLOWS: 4.WHEN A MATTER REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IS DECIDED BY A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, THE JUDGMENT WOULD BE A NULLITY, THE MATTER HAVING BEEN HEARD BEING A MATTER OF TOTAL LACK OF JURISDICTION.THE ACCUSED WAS ENTITLED TO BE HEARD BY AT LEAST TWO LEARNED JUDGES CONSTITUTING A DIVISION BENCH AND HAD A RIGHT TO CLAIM A VERDICT AS REGARDS HIS GUILT OR RIGHT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY EXCEPT BY AMENDING THE RULES.SO 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 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 UNDER THE RULES.WHAT CAN BE DONE ONLY BY AT LEAST TWO LEARNED JUDGES CANNOT BE N IS RIGHT ON MERITS, IT IS BY A FORUM WHICH IS LACKING IN COMPETENCE WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT MATTER.EVEN A RIGHT DECISION BY A EXISTENT IN THE EYE OF LAW.AND HENCE A NULLITY.THE E NO JUDGMENT IN THE EYE OF LAW.THIS 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 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE THE HIGH COURT FOR BEING PLACED BEFORE A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT, WHICH WILL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE IS COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS/. ASHOKE GLASS WORKS REPORTED IN (1980) 125 ITR491(CAL) WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING VIEW WAS EXPRESSED (PAGE 505): SO WHEN THE JURISDICTION IS VALIDLY REMOVED BY A COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE L COURT OR ANY TRIBUNAL OR AUTHORITY IN SUCH EVENT WILL BE INCOMPETENT, AS HAVING CEASED TO HAVE JURISDICTION, TO PROCEED FURTHER WITH THE PENDING PROCEEDING OR PROCEEDING WHICH MAY BE INSTITUTED AFTER SUCH REMOVAL OF JURISDICTION. 27. AFTER HEARING BOTH WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT 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 RESTRICTED TRANSFER WAS SOUGHT TO BE MADE FOR ANY PARTICULAR YEAR OR YEARS OR OTHERWISE. THE ORDER OF TRANSFER, AS WE HAVE A INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR BETTER COORDINATION, EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATIVE AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT. THE ACTUAL TRANSFER OF FILES MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON 29TH JULY, 2013 BUT ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 MARCH, 2013. THE EXISTENCE OF FILES DOES NOT CONFER THE JURISDICTION WHEN THE SAME HAS VALIDLY BEEN TRANSFERRED AND ALSO ACTED UPON. LAW. THE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 BY NO OTHER THAN THE CIT KOLKATA LOST THE SEISIN OVER THE MATTER. HE BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO THE STROUDS JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES, 7TH EDITION, PAGE 1085 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING MEANING HAS BEEN EXPRESSED: FUNCTUS OFFICIO. AN ARBITRATOR OR REFEREE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FUNCTUS A DECISION WHICH IS HELD TO BE NO DECISION 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 EXECUTION WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED AND ENTERED, HE IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO, AND NEITHER HE NO TERMS OF SUCH STAY (RE V.G.M.HOLDING LTD [1941].3 ALL E.R.417). AN ARBITRATOR OR UMPIRE WHO HAS MADE HIS AWARD IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO, AND COULD NOT BY COMMON LAW ALTER IT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEV 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 CAS ENGLAND LAW REPORTS, 417 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING VIEWS WERE EXPRESSED: I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A STRANGE POSITION IF A JUDGE WERE AT LIBERTY TO RECONSIDER HIS DECISION AND GRANT A STAY OF EXECUTION AFTER HE HAD MA A JUDGE HAS MADE AN ORDER SUCH AS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ONLY REMEDY HE IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER, IS TO GO TO THE COURT OF APPEAL A SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF KOMAL CHAN REPORTED IN AIR 1966 MADHYA PRADESH 20 OPINED IN THIS 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 INS DUTY ON THE REGISTERING OFFICER TO EXAMINE WHETHER AN INSTRUMENT PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION IS DULY STAMPED. IF, AS SECTION 36 SAYS, AN INSTRUMENT CHARGEABLE WITH DUTY SHALL NOT BE REGISTERED UNLESS SUCH INSTRUMENT IS DULY STAMPED, 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 REGISTRATION AND NOT AFTERWARDS. IF HE FINDS THAT TH 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 REGISTERING OFFICER REGISTERS A DOCUMENT PRESENTED TO HIM FOR REGISTRATION, THE FUNCTION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM IS OVER AND THEREAFTER BECOMES FUNCTUS OFFICIO HAVING NO POWER UNDER SECTION 33 TO IMPOUND THE INSTRUMENT. THE MATTER IS REALLY CONCLUDED BY THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN GOVT. OF UTTAR PRADESH V. MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD KHAN, AIR1961SC787 THAT WAS A CASE WHERE THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER 19 BE INCOMPETENT, AS HAVING CEASED TO HAVE JURISDICTION, TO PROCEED FURTHER WITH THE PENDING PROCEEDING OR PROCEEDING WHICH MAY BE INSTITUTED AFTER SUCH REMOVAL OF JURISDICTION. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER HAD JURISDICTION TO RESTRICT THE ORDER OF TRANSFER, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE ORDER 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 RESTRICTED TRANSFER WAS SOUGHT TO BE MADE FOR ANY PARTICULAR YEAR OR YEARS OR OTHERWISE. THE ORDER OF TRANSFER, AS WE HAVE A LREADY INDICATED, WAS PASSED IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR BETTER COORDINATION, EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATIVE AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT. THE ACTUAL TRANSFER OF FILES MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON 29TH JULY, 2013 BUT ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 3(2) BY THE TRANSFEREE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ISSUED ON 18TH MARCH, 2013. THE EXISTENCE OF FILES DOES NOT CONFER THE JURISDICTION WHEN THE SAME HAS VALIDLY BEEN TRANSFERRED AND ALSO ACTED UPON. 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 LOST THE SEISIN OVER THE MATTER. HE BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO . REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO THE STROUDS JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES, 7TH EDITION, PAGE 1085 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING MEANING HAS BEEN EXPRESSED: FUNCTUS OFFICIO. AN ARBITRATOR OR REFEREE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FUNCTUS OFFICIO WHEN HE HAS GIVEN A DECISION WHICH IS HELD TO BE NO DECISION 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 EXECUTION WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED AND ENTERED, HE IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO, AND NEITHER HE NO R ANY OTHER JUDGE OF EQUAL JURISDICTION HAS JURISDICTION TO VARY THE TERMS OF SUCH STAY (RE V.G.M.HOLDING LTD [1941].3 ALL E.R.417). AN ARBITRATOR OR UMPIRE WHO HAS MADE HIS AWARD IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO, AND COULD NOT BY COMMON LAW ALTER IT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEV ER; HE COULD NOT EVEN 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 CAS E 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 JUDGE WERE AT LIBERTY TO RECONSIDER HIS DECISION AND GRANT A STAY OF EXECUTION AFTER HE HAD MA DE AN ORDER REFUSING IT. I THINK A JUDGE HAS MADE AN ORDER SUCH AS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ONLY REMEDY HE IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER, IS TO GO TO THE COURT OF APPEAL A SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF KOMAL CHAN D VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, REPORTED IN AIR 1966 MADHYA PRADESH 20 OPINED IN THIS 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 INS TRUMENT IS DULY STAMPED. THIS PROVISION THUS CASTS A DUTY ON THE REGISTERING OFFICER TO EXAMINE WHETHER AN INSTRUMENT PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION IS DULY STAMPED. IF, AS SECTION 36 SAYS, AN INSTRUMENT CHARGEABLE WITH DUTY SHALL NOT BE REGISTERED UNLESS INSTRUMENT IS DULY STAMPED, 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 REGISTRATION AND NOT AFTERWARDS. IF HE FINDS THAT TH E 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 REGISTERING OFFICER REGISTERS A DOCUMENT PRESENTED TO HIM FOR REGISTRATION, THE FUNCTION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM IS OVER AND THEREAFTER BECOMES OFFICIO HAVING NO POWER UNDER SECTION 33 TO IMPOUND THE INSTRUMENT. THE MATTER IS REALLY CONCLUDED BY THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN GOVT. OF UTTAR PRADESH V. MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD KHAN, AIR1961SC787 THAT WAS A CASE WHERE THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. BE INCOMPETENT, AS HAVING CEASED TO HAVE JURISDICTION, TO PROCEED FURTHER WITH THE PENDING PROCEEDING OR PROCEEDING WHICH MAY BE INSTITUTED AFTER SUCH REMOVAL OF THE PARTIES THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER HAD JURISDICTION TO RESTRICT THE ORDER OF TRANSFER, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE ORDER 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 RESTRICTED TRANSFER WAS SOUGHT TO BE MADE FOR ANY PARTICULAR LREADY INDICATED, WAS PASSED IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR BETTER COORDINATION, EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATIVE AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT. THE ACTUAL TRANSFER OF FILES MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON 29TH JULY, 2013 BUT ADMITTED 3(2) BY THE TRANSFEREE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ISSUED ON 18TH MARCH, 2013. THE EXISTENCE OF FILES DOES NOT CONFER THE JURISDICTION WHEN THE SAME HAS VALIDLY BEEN MATTER HAS TO BE CONFERRED BY LAW. THE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE ORDER DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 BY II, KOLKATA HIMSELF. ONCE THAT WAS DONE CIT KOLKATA II, KOLKATA REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO THE STROUDS JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES, 7TH EDITION, PAGE 1085 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING MEANING HAS BEEN EXPRESSED: OFFICIO WHEN HE HAS GIVEN A DECISION WHICH IS HELD TO BE NO DECISION 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 EXECUTION WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED AND ENTERED, HE IS R ANY OTHER JUDGE OF EQUAL JURISDICTION HAS JURISDICTION TO VARY THE AN ARBITRATOR OR UMPIRE WHO HAS MADE HIS AWARD IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO, AND COULD NOT BY COMMON LAW ER; HE COULD NOT EVEN 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 E OF RE V.G.M.HOLDINGS, LTD. 1941 (3) ALL I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A STRANGE POSITION IF A JUDGE WERE AT LIBERTY TO RECONSIDER HIS DE AN ORDER REFUSING IT. I THINK THAT, WHEN FOR THE RESPONDENT, IF VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, SECTION 35 OF THE STAMP ACT, INTER ALIA, SAYS THAT NO INSTRUMENT CHARGEABLE WITH DUTY SHALL BE TRUMENT IS DULY STAMPED. THIS PROVISION THUS CASTS A DUTY ON THE REGISTERING OFFICER TO EXAMINE WHETHER AN INSTRUMENT PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION IS DULY STAMPED. IF, AS SECTION 36 SAYS, AN INSTRUMENT CHARGEABLE WITH DUTY SHALL NOT BE REGISTERED UNLESS INSTRUMENT IS DULY STAMPED, 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 E 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 WAS OR WAS NOT DULY STAMPED AND TO IMPOUND IT. AS SOON AS THE REGISTERING OFFICER REGISTERS A DOCUMENT PRESENTED TO HIM FOR REGISTRATION, THE FUNCTION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM IS OVER AND THEREAFTER BECOMES THE MATTER IS REALLY CONCLUDED BY THE DECISION OF THE 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 INSTRUMENT SENT TO HIM FOR ADJUDICATION UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE STAMP ACT. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT UNDER THAT SECTION THE COLLECTOR HAD NO SUCH POWER, AS THE PROVISION GAVE HIM THE POWER ONLY TO GIVE HIS OPINION A IN HIS JUDGMENT THE INSTRUMENT WAS CHARGEABLE AND WHEN THAT FUNCTION WAS PERFORMED BY THE COLLECTOR HE BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE POWER TO IMPOUND ONLY EXISTS WHEN AN INSTRUMENT IS PR ODUCED BEFORE JUDICIAL OFFICERS OR OTHER OFFICERS PERFORMING JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AS EVIDENCE OF ANY FACT TO BE PROVED, OR BEFORE OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO HAVE TO PERFORM ANY FUNCTION IN REGARD TO THOSE INSTRUMENTS AS, FOR EXAMPLE, REGISTRATION. THE SUPREME 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 OFFICIO WAS APPLIED AND IT WA CERTIFICATE 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 ADMITTED IN EVIDENC E AFTER DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT.HERE, WHEN THE SUB IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SUB MANUAL WHEN HE MADE A REPORT TO THE COLLECTOR THAT THE TAKSEEMNAMA WAS NOT DULY STAMPED.BUT ON READING PARAG RAPHS 231 AND 232 IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY DO NOT SAY THAT AFTER A DOCUMENT IS ADMITTED TO REGISTRATION, THE REGISTERING OFFICER CAN MAKE A REPORT TO THE COLLECTOR THAT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY STAMPED ON THE OTHER HAND, PARAGRAPH 231 EXPRESSLY LAYS DOWN A DIR TAKING ANY FURTHER ACTION, 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 PARAGRAPH 232 OBVIOUSLY REFER TO THE ENT DOCUMENTS 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 EXPRESSED: IT IS TRUE THAT ONCE AN AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI REVIEW ITS DECISION UNLESS THE RELEVANT STATUTE OR RULES PERMIT SUCH REVIEW.B AT WHAT STAGE AN AUTHORITY BECOMES FUNCTUS OFFICIO IN REGARD TO AN ORDER MADE BY HIM.P.RAMANATHA AIYAR'S ADVANCED LAW LEXICO.(3RD EDN., VOL.2, PP.1946 ILLUSTRATIVE DEFINITION OF THE TERM FUNCTUS OFFICIO: THUS A JUDGE, WHEN HE HAS DECIDED A QUESTION BROUGHT 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 OFFICE, OR ACC NO FURTHER FORCE OR AUTHORITY. WE MAY FIRST REFER TO THE POSITION WITH REFERENCE TO CIVIL COURTS.ORDER 20 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DEALS WITH JUDGMENT AND DECREE.RULE 1 EXPLAINS WHEN A JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED. RULE (1) PROVIDES THAT THE COURT, AFTER 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 PRONOUNCED ON SOME FUTURE DAY, THE COURT SHALL FIX A SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PARTIES OR THEIR PLEADERS.SUB PRONOUNCED BY DICTATION IN AN OPEN COURT TO A SHORTHAND WRITER [IF THE JUDGE IS SPECIALLY EMPOWERED (SIC BY THE HIGH COU JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED BY DICTATION IN OPEN COURT, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT SO PRONOUNCED SHALL, AFTER MAKING SUCH CORRECTIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY, BE SIGNED BY THE JUDGE, BEAR THE DATE 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 AND WHEN ONCE SIGNED, SHALL NOT AFTERWARDS BE ALTERED OR ADDED TO SAVE AS PROVIDED WHERE A JUDGMENT IS RESERVED, MERE DICTATION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO PRONOUNCEMENT, BUT WHERE THE JUDGMENT IS DICTATED IN OPEN COURT, THAT ITSELF AMOUNTS TO PRONOUNCEMENT.BUT EVEN AFTER SUCH PRONOUNCEMENT BY OPEN COURT DICTATI THE JUDGMENT.THEREFORE, A JUDGE BECOMES FUNCTUS OFFICIO WHEN HE PRONOUNCES, SIGNS AND DATES THE JUDGMENT (SUBJECT TO SECTION 152 AND POWER OF REVIEW).THE POSITION IS DIFFERENT WITH REFERENCE TO 20 COLLECTOR HAS ANY POWER TO IMPOUND AN INSTRUMENT SENT TO HIM FOR ADJUDICATION UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE STAMP ACT. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT UNDER THAT SECTION THE COLLECTOR HAD NO SUCH POWER, AS THE PROVISION GAVE HIM THE POWER ONLY TO GIVE HIS OPINION A S REGARDS THE DUTY WITH WHICH IN HIS JUDGMENT THE INSTRUMENT WAS CHARGEABLE AND WHEN THAT FUNCTION WAS PERFORMED BY THE COLLECTOR HE BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE POWER TO IMPOUND ONLY EXISTS WHEN AN INSTRUMENT ODUCED BEFORE JUDICIAL OFFICERS OR OTHER OFFICERS PERFORMING JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AS EVIDENCE OF ANY FACT TO BE PROVED, OR BEFORE OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO HAVE TO PERFORM ANY FUNCTION IN REGARD TO THOSE INSTRUMENTS AS, FOR EXAMPLE, 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 OFFICIO WAS APPLIED AND IT WA S HELD THAT THE COURT HAD NO POWER TO RECALL AND IMPOUND A CERTIFICATE 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 ADMITTED IN E 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 COLLECTOR THAT THE TAKSEEMNAMA WAS NOT DULY STAMPED.BUT RAPHS 231 AND 232 IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY DO NOT SAY THAT AFTER A DOCUMENT IS ADMITTED TO REGISTRATION, THE REGISTERING OFFICER CAN MAKE A REPORT TO THE COLLECTOR THAT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY STAMPED ON THE OTHER HAND, PARAGRAPH 231 EXPRESSLY LAYS DOWN A DIR TAKING ANY FURTHER ACTION, 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 PARAGRAPH 232 OBVIOUSLY REFER TO THE ENT RY OF THE DOCUMENT IN THE REGISTER MAINTAINED OF DOCUMENTS 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 V ERSUS S.N.GOYAL REPORTED IN 2009 (8) SCC92THE FOLLOWING VIEWS WERE IT IS TRUE THAT ONCE AN AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI - JUDICIAL POWER TAKES A FINAL DECISION, IT CANNOT REVIEW ITS DECISION UNLESS THE RELEVANT STATUTE OR RULES PERMIT SUCH REVIEW.B UT THE QUESTION IS AS TO AT WHAT STAGE AN AUTHORITY BECOMES 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: THUS A JUDGE, WHEN HE HAS DECIDED A QUESTION BROUGHT 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 OFFICE, OR ACC OMPLISHED THE PURPOSE, AND THEREFORE OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR AUTHORITY. WE MAY FIRST REFER TO THE POSITION WITH REFERENCE TO CIVIL COURTS.ORDER 20 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DEALS WITH JUDGMENT AND DECREE.RULE 1 EXPLAINS WHEN A JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED. RULE (1) PROVIDES THAT THE COURT, AFTER 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 PRONOUNCED 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 PRONOUNCED BY DICTATION IN AN OPEN COURT TO A SHORTHAND WRITER [IF THE JUDGE IS SPECIALLY EMPOWERED (SIC BY THE HIGH COU RT) IN THIS BEHALF].THE PROVISO THERETO PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED BY DICTATION IN OPEN COURT, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT SO PRONOUNCED SHALL, AFTER MAKING SUCH CORRECTIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY, BE SIGNED BY THE JUDGE, BEAR THE DATE 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 AND 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 PRONOUNCEMENT, BUT WHERE THE JUDGMENT IS DICTATED IN OPEN COURT, THAT ITSELF AMOUNTS TO PRONOUNCEMENT.BUT EVEN AFTER SUCH PRONOUNCEMENT BY OPEN COURT DICTATI ON, THE JUDGE CAN MAKE CORRECTIONS BEFORE SIGNING AND DATING THE JUDGMENT.THEREFORE, A JUDGE BECOMES FUNCTUS OFFICIO WHEN HE PRONOUNCES, SIGNS AND DATES THE JUDGMENT (SUBJECT TO SECTION 152 AND POWER OF REVIEW).THE POSITION IS DIFFERENT WITH REFERENCE TO ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. COLLECTOR HAS ANY POWER TO IMPOUND AN INSTRUMENT SENT TO HIM FOR ADJUDICATION UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE STAMP ACT. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT UNDER THAT SECTION THE COLLECTOR HAD NO SUCH S REGARDS THE DUTY WITH WHICH IN HIS JUDGMENT THE INSTRUMENT WAS CHARGEABLE AND WHEN THAT FUNCTION WAS PERFORMED BY THE IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE POWER TO IMPOUND ONLY EXISTS WHEN AN INSTRUMENT ODUCED BEFORE JUDICIAL OFFICERS OR OTHER OFFICERS PERFORMING JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AS EVIDENCE OF ANY FACT TO BE PROVED, OR BEFORE OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO HAVE TO PERFORM ANY FUNCTION IN REGARD TO 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 S HELD THAT THE COURT HAD NO POWER TO RECALL AND IMPOUND A CERTIFICATE 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 ADMITTED IN REGISTRAR PURPORTED TO ACT UNDER PARAGRAPH 232 OF THE REGISTRATION MANUAL WHEN HE MADE A REPORT TO THE COLLECTOR THAT THE TAKSEEMNAMA WAS NOT DULY STAMPED.BUT RAPHS 231 AND 232 IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY DO NOT SAY THAT AFTER A DOCUMENT IS ADMITTED TO REGISTRATION, THE REGISTERING OFFICER CAN MAKE A REPORT TO THE COLLECTOR THAT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY STAMPED ON THE OTHER HAND, PARAGRAPH 231 EXPRESSLY LAYS DOWN A DIR ECTION THAT BEFORE TAKING ANY FURTHER ACTION, 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 RY OF THE DOCUMENT IN THE REGISTER MAINTAINED OF DOCUMENTS 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. ERSUS S.N.GOYAL REPORTED IN 2009 (8) SCC92THE FOLLOWING VIEWS WERE JUDICIAL POWER TAKES A FINAL DECISION, IT CANNOT UT THE QUESTION IS AS TO AT WHAT STAGE AN AUTHORITY BECOMES FUNCTUS OFFICIO IN REGARD TO AN ORDER MADE BY 47) GIVES THE FOLLOWING THUS A JUDGE, WHEN HE HAS DECIDED A QUESTION BROUGHT BEFORE HIM, IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO, AND CANNOT OMPLISHED THE PURPOSE, AND THEREFORE OF WE MAY FIRST REFER TO THE POSITION WITH REFERENCE TO CIVIL COURTS.ORDER 20 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DEALS WITH JUDGMENT AND DECREE.RULE 1 EXPLAINS WHEN A JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED. SUB- RULE (1) PROVIDES THAT THE COURT, AFTER 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 DAY FOR THAT PURPOSE OF WHICH DUE NOTICE RULE (3) PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED BY DICTATION IN AN OPEN COURT TO A SHORTHAND WRITER [IF THE JUDGE IS SPECIALLY RT) IN THIS BEHALF].THE PROVISO THERETO PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED BY DICTATION IN OPEN COURT, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT SO PRONOUNCED SHALL, AFTER MAKING SUCH CORRECTIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY, BE SIGNED BY THE JUDGE, BEAR THE 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 AND WHEN ONCE SIGNED, BY SECTION 152 OR ON REVIEW.THUS, WHERE A JUDGMENT IS RESERVED, MERE DICTATION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO PRONOUNCEMENT, BUT WHERE THE JUDGMENT IS DICTATED IN OPEN COURT, THAT ITSELF AMOUNTS TO PRONOUNCEMENT.BUT EVEN AFTER SUCH ON, THE JUDGE CAN MAKE CORRECTIONS BEFORE SIGNING AND DATING THE JUDGMENT.THEREFORE, A JUDGE BECOMES FUNCTUS 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 PRONOUNCE THEIR ORDERS ON THE DAY FIXED, MANY QUASI ORDERS.SOME PUBLISH OR NOTIFY THEIR ORDERS.SOME PREPARE AND SIGN T SAME TO THE PARTY CONCERNED.A QUASI ORDER IS PRONOUNCED, OR PUBLISHED/NOTIFIED OR COMMUNICATED (PUT IN THE COURSE OF TRANSMISSION) TO THE PARTY CONCERNED.WHEN AN ORD PUBLISHED OR COMMUNICATED, NOTHING PREVENTS THE AUTHORITY FROM CORRECTING IT OR ALTERING IT FOR VALID REASONS.BUT ONCE THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED OR PUBLISHED OR NOTIFIED OR COMMUNICATED, THE AUT HORITY WILL BECOME FUNCTUS OFFICIO.THE ORDER DATED 18 NEITHER PRONOUNCED, NOR PUBLISHED/NOTIFIED NOR COMMUNICATED.THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO WHEN IT SIGNED THE NOTE D 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 OFFICIO PRIOR TO 18TH MARCH, 2013 BECAUSE THE TRANSFEREE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASSUMED JURISD 2013 UNDER SECTION 143(2) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED.THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF TRANSFER WAS DULY PUBLISHED/ NOTIFIED AND/OR COMMUNICATED AND THEREAFTER ACTED UPON BY THE TRANSFEREE 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 MARCH, 2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WERE ACTS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE A NULLITY. FOR THE A FORESAID REASONS THE QUESTION NO.(A) IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE. THE POINT IS, THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 28. FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, WE UNDERSTAND THAT IN THIS CASE AFTER THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT DATED 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 29. COMING BACK TO THE CASE IN HAND, AND HAVING TAKEN 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 BECAME 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 MATTER THE NOTICE ISSUED THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI U/S 143(2)WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND, THEREFORE, NON- EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. 30. OUR ABOVE FINDING ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHANKYA FINVEST PVT LTD VS ITO (34 TAXMANN.COM HAD PASSED AN ORDER U/S 127 DATED 04.01.2010 TRANSFERRING 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 PROCE AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 25.03.2010 FOR AY 2003 BEING FRESH ORDER U/S 124/ 127; THE ITO, DELHI TRANSFERRED THE CASE RECORDS PERTAINING TO REASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2003 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(5), ITO KOLKATA CONTINUED WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH THE CASE RECORDS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM DELHI AND THEREAFTER PASSED THE ORDER U/S 147/143(3).BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENT ORDER U/S 143(3)/147 ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 21 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 NOTIFY THEIR ORDERS.SOME PREPARE AND SIGN T HE ORDERS AND COMMUNICATE THE SAME TO THE PARTY CONCERNED.A QUASI - JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WILL BECOME FUNCTUS OFFICIO ONLY WHEN ITS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED, OR PUBLISHED/NOTIFIED OR COMMUNICATED (PUT IN THE COURSE OF TRANSMISSION) TO THE PARTY CONCERNED.WHEN AN ORD ER IS MADE IN AN OFFICE NOTING IN A FILE BUT IS NOT PRONOUNCED, PUBLISHED OR COMMUNICATED, NOTHING PREVENTS THE AUTHORITY FROM CORRECTING IT OR ALTERING IT FOR VALID REASONS.BUT ONCE THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED OR PUBLISHED OR NOTIFIED OR COMMUNICATED, THE HORITY 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 CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO WHEN IT SIGNED THE NOTE D ATED 18 APPLYING THE LAW LAID DOWN IN S.N.GOYALS (SUPRA) CASE WE ARE REINFORCED, IN OUR OPINION THAT THE II, KOLKATA HAD BECOME FUNCTUS OFFICIO PRIOR TO 18TH MARCH, 2013 BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASSUMED JURISD ICTION WITHOUT WHICH THE NOTICE DATED 18TH MARCH, 2013 UNDER SECTION 143(2) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED.THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF TRANSFER WAS DULY PUBLISHED/ NOTIFIED AND/OR COMMUNICATED AND THEREAFTER ACTED UPON BY THE TRANSFEREE AS SUCH OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE DATED 18TH MARCH, 2013 UNDER SECTION 263 AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH, 2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WERE ACTS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE A NULLITY. FORESAID REASONS THE QUESTION NO.(A) IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE. THE POINT IS, THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US) FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, WE UNDERSTAND THAT IN THIS CASE AFTER THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT DATED 03.09.2012 WAS PASSED BY THE 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. TO THE CASE IN HAND, AND HAVING TAKEN NOTE OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE NOTE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, AFTER V, NEW DELHI DATED 08.10.2008 TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION OF THE CASE TO DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RANCHI, THE CIT, DELHI BECAME 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 MATTER THE NOTICE ISSUED 21(1), NEW DELHI U/S 143(2)WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND, THEREFORE, EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. OUR ABOVE FINDING ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION 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 TRANSFERRING 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 PROCE EDINGS AFTER RECORDING REASONS AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 25.03.2010 FOR AY 2003 - 04. THEREAFTER, WITHOUT THEIR BEING FRESH ORDER U/S 124/ 127; THE ITO, DELHI TRANSFERRED THE CASE RECORDS PERTAINING TO REASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2003 -04 TO THE CHARGE OF ITO, KOLKATA. TAKING RECOURSE TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(5), ITO KOLKATA CONTINUED WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH THE CASE RECORDS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM DELHI AND THEREAFTER PASSED THE ORDER 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 ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS FIX A DAY FOR PRONOUNCEMENT AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES DO NOT PRONOUNCE THEIR HE ORDERS AND COMMUNICATE THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WILL BECOME FUNCTUS OFFICIO ONLY WHEN ITS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED, OR PUBLISHED/NOTIFIED OR COMMUNICATED (PUT IN THE COURSE OF TRANSMISSION) TO ER IS MADE IN AN OFFICE NOTING IN A FILE BUT IS NOT PRONOUNCED, PUBLISHED OR COMMUNICATED, NOTHING PREVENTS THE AUTHORITY FROM CORRECTING IT OR ALTERING IT FOR VALID REASONS.BUT ONCE THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED OR PUBLISHED OR NOTIFIED OR COMMUNICATED, THE 1995 MADE ON AN OFFICE NOTE, WAS NEITHER PRONOUNCED, NOR PUBLISHED/NOTIFIED NOR COMMUNICATED.THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ATED 18 -1-1995. APPLYING THE LAW LAID DOWN IN S.N.GOYALS (SUPRA) CASE WE ARE REINFORCED, IN OUR OPINION THAT THE II, KOLKATA HAD BECOME FUNCTUS OFFICIO PRIOR TO 18TH MARCH, 2013 BECAUSE THE ICTION WITHOUT WHICH THE NOTICE DATED 18TH MARCH, 2013 UNDER SECTION 143(2) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED.THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF TRANSFER WAS DULY PUBLISHED/ NOTIFIED AND/OR COMMUNICATED AND THEREAFTER ACTED UPON BY THE TRANSFEREE -ASSESSING AS SUCH OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE DATED 18TH MARCH, 2013 UNDER SECTION 263 AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH, 2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE THE POINT IS, THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US) FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, WE UNDERSTAND THAT IN THIS CASE AFTER THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT DATED 03.09.2012 WAS PASSED BY THE 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 TO THE CASE IN HAND, AND HAVING TAKEN NOTE OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE NOTE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, AFTER V, NEW DELHI DATED 08.10.2008 TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION OF THE CASE TO DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RANCHI, THE CIT, DELHI BECAME 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 MATTER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 21(1), NEW DELHI U/S 143(2)WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND, THEREFORE, OUR ABOVE FINDING ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE 206). IN THAT CASE THE CIT DELHI HAD PASSED AN ORDER U/S 127 DATED 04.01.2010 TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE FROM ITO, DELHI TO ITO KOLKATA. AFTER THE ORDER U/S 127 WAS PASSED ON EDINGS AFTER RECORDING REASONS 04. THEREAFTER, WITHOUT THEIR BEING FRESH ORDER U/S 124/ 127; THE ITO, DELHI TRANSFERRED THE CASE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ITO, KOLKATA. TAKING RECOURSE TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(5), ITO KOLKATA CONTINUED WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH THE CASE RECORDS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM DELHI AND THEREAFTER 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 OBJE 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT DELHI IN THE OFFICE OF ITO, WARD DELHI ON 02-12-2003. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 25 OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 3, NEW DELHI. BUT, IN THE MEANTIME, CIT THE JURISDICTION OF THIS CASE VIDE ITS ORDER NO.CIT 3(3), NEW DELHI TO ITO, WARD ITO, WARD- 3(3), NEW DELHI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 25 CASE WAS TRANSFERRED U/S. 127(2) OF THE ACT FROM NEW DELHI TO KOLKATA ON 04 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 CH ALLENGED 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 FROM ADDITIONAL CIT DELHI ON 25 HOWEVER THE CIT DELHI HAD PASSED AN ORDER U/S. 127 TRANSFERRING THE F 25-3- 2010 THE AO IN DELHI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION 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 DELHI. WE HAVE REQUESTED THE KOLKATA TO ISSUE THE COPY 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 RECORDS 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, WARD VI/KOL/REMAND/2011- 12/368 DATED 20 6(1)/KOL/CHANAKYAFINVEST/11 'KINDLY REFER TO YOUR LETTER NO. CIT(A) IN THIS CONNECTION FOLLOWING INFORMATION AS AVAILABLE FROM THE RECOR DATE 1. 04 2. 23 3. 25 4. 25 5. 30 6. 03 7. 03 8. 29 THOUGH THE ORDER U/S 127 WAS PASSED BY LD. CIT, DELHI TRANSFERRED TO THE TRANSFEREE AO, THE JURISDICTION LIES WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THE CHARGE OVER THE 22 148 WAS ISSUED BY AN OFFICER WHO DID NOT HOLD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE TRIBUNAL UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEES OBJE CTION, OBSERVED AS UNDER: BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT DELHI IN THE OFFICE OF ITO, WARD SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 25 -03- 2010 WITH THE PERMISSION 3, NEW DELHI. 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 3(3), NEW DELHI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 25 CASE WAS TRANSFERRED U/S. 127(2) OF THE ACT FROM NEW DELHI TO KOLKATA ON 04 -01- 2010. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 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 ALLENGED 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 FROM ADDITIONAL CIT DELHI ON 25 -03-2010. HOWEVER THE CIT DELHI HAD PASSED AN ORDER U/S. 127 TRANSFERRING THE F ILE TO KOLKATA ON 4 2010 THE AO IN DELHI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION 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 DELHI. WE HAVE REQUESTED THE KOLKATA TO ISSUE THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 127 AND 151 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED WE THEREFORE REQUEST YOU TO EITHER, CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ADJUDICATE THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OR GRANT AN OBTAIN CERTIFIED COPIES OF ALL RELATED RECORDS SO THAT WE CAN REPRESENT THE MATTER THE CIT(A) SENT THIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA VIDE LETTER NO. CIT(A) 12/368 DATED 20 -02-2010 AND THE AO SENT ITS REMAND R EPORT 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/REMAND REPORT/2011- 12/368 DATED 20.02.2012. IN THIS CONNECTION FOLLOWING INFORMATION AS AVAILABLE FROM THE RECOR D ARE CHRONOLOGICALLY APPENDED BELOW: DATE HAPPENING 1. 04 -01-10 ORDER U/S L27 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, DELHI 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 THOUGH THE ORDER U/S 127 WAS PASSED BY LD. CIT, DELHI -I, ON 04-01- 10, BUT TILL THE TIME THE RECORDS ARE NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE TRANSFEREE AO, THE JURISDICTION LIES WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THE CHARGE OVER THE ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. 148 WAS ISSUED BY AN OFFICER WHO DID NOT HOLD VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT DELHI IN THE OFFICE OF ITO, WARD -3(3) 2010 WITH THE PERMISSION 1, DELHI PASSED AN ORDER U/S. 127(2) TRANSFERRING 2010 FROM ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE CIT(A) THAT 3(3), NEW DELHI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 25 -03-2010 AS THE 2010. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 'THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE I. T. ACT 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLENGED THE REOPENING BY THE ITO WARD 3(3) DELHI. THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 WAS ISSUED BY ILE TO KOLKATA ON 4 -1-2010 AS SUCH ON 2010 THE AO IN DELHI DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION 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 DELHI. WE HAVE REQUESTED THE AO AT KOLKATA TO ISSUE THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 127 AND 151 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED WE THEREFORE REQUEST YOU TO EITHER, CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ADJUDICATE THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OR GRANT AN OBTAIN CERTIFIED COPIES OF ALL RELATED RECORDS SO THAT WE CAN REPRESENT THE MATTER 6(1), KOLKATA VIDE LETTER NO. CIT(A) - EPORT VIDE LETTER NO. WD - 12/368 DATED 20.02.2012. D ARE CHRONOLOGICALLY APPENDED BELOW: ORDER U/S L27 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, DELHI - I, NEW OPEN THE CASE WAS SENT TO LD. ADDL. 3, ACCORDED THE NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED AND SERVED BY ITO, WARD - RECORD RECEIVED BY THE UNDER SIGNED FROM ITO, THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 VIDE NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) BOTH WERE ISSUED ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 147/144 AS THERE WERE 10, BUT TILL THE TIME THE RECORDS ARE NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE TRANSFEREE AO, THE JURISDICTION LIES WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THE CHARGE OVER THE CASE AND ALL ACTION AS PER THE LAW IS THE JURISDICTIONAL AO AT DELHI HAS RIGHTLY RE NOTICE U/S 148. ON RECEIVING THE RECORDS ON 30 AFTER OFFERING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE.' DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON 16 'MR. MIRAJ D. SHAH, ADVOCATE ATTENDED THE PROCE THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED, ORDER SHEET OF 147 PROCEEDINGS GIVEN. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT FILE WAS TRANSFERRED TO KOLKATA ON 4 ADDL. CIT TO BE SUBMITTED TOMORROW. THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF DELHI A.O. WAS NOT TAKEN 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 PROCEEDINGS THAT HE DOES NOT SUBMIT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS EITHER BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THESE ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS NEVE JURISDICTION OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF NEW DELHI OR INITIATION/CONTINUATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE INCOME THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN WHEN THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON 08 2010 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 TH ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 29 9. THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER, WARD (1) HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE RECORDS WERE NOT TRANSFERRED TO HIM AND WAS STILL LYING WITH ITO WARD 3(3), NEW DELHI ON THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TRANSFER OF CASE RECORDS, THE JURISDICTION IS NOT TRANSFERRED AUTOMATICALLY SINCE THE ITO WARD 6(1), KOLKATA DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 127 BY THE C 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 JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF PROCEEDINGS. SECTION 124(3) OF THE INCOME CANNOT BE CHALLENGED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC TION 143(2)/148. THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN TRANSPORT CO. V. IAC 189 ITR 326 (ALL.) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS A TIME JURISDICTION 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 HI HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD NOT RAISED THE OBJECTION AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE CASE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OR WITHIN THE 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 TRANSFERRED TO THE TRANSFERE E ASSESSING OFFICER, THE JURISDICTION 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 ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS OF CURRENT ASSESS KOLKATA AND HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AT DELHI HAS RIGHTLY RE CASE AFTER DUE APPROVAL FROM HIS JURISDICTIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME BEFORE ACTUALLY TRANSFERRING THE CASE. 19. THE APPELLANT NEVER RAISED THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION 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 KOLKA WAS A POSSIBILITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT NEW DELHI TO GET THE RECORDS TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO KOLKATA AND A FRESH NOTICE MAY HAVE BEEN ISSUED DURING THE TIME 23 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 ON RECEIVING THE RECORDS ON 30 -11-10 THE UNDERSIGNED DISPOSE D OFF THE CASE U/S. 147/144 AS PER THE LAW AFTER OFFERING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING 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 PROCE EDINGS & FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF ONE PAPER ALONG WITH THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED, ORDER SHEET OF 147 PROCEEDINGS GIVEN. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT FILE WAS TRANSFERRED TO KOLKATA ON 4 -1- 10 BY ORDER U/S 127. COPIES OF ORDER U/S 127 AND SECTION 1 ADDL. CIT TO BE SUBMITTED TOMORROW. THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF DELHI A.O. WAS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE A.O. WHO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND OBSERVED IN PARAS 8 AND 9 AS UNDER: SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT HE DOES NOT SUBMIT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS EITHER BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THESE ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS NEVE R 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 BY THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING SSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN WHEN THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON 08 2010. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ASKED FOR THE EXTENSION OF TIME FROM ASSESSING OFFICER 2010 BUT DID NOT FILE ANY OBJECTION REGARDING TH E JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 29 -12-2010. TAX OFFICER, WARD (1) HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE RECORDS WERE NOT TRANSFERRED TO HIM AND WITH ITO WARD 3(3), NEW DELHI ON THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TRANSFER OF CASE RECORDS, THE JURISDICTION IS NOT TRANSFERRED AUTOMATICALLY SINCE THE ITO WARD 6(1), KOLKATA DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 127 BY THE C OMMISSIONER 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 JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SECTION 124(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE CHALLENGED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER TION 143(2)/148. THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN TRANSPORT CO. V. IAC HAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS A TIME - LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT TO WHICH T JURISDICTION 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 HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. V. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 457 (CAL.) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD NOT RAISED THE OBJECTION AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE CASE BY THE ER OR WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AS IS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 124, THE SAME COULD NOT BE 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 E ASSESSING OFFICER, THE JURISDICTION 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 ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS OF CURRENT ASSESS ING OFFICER I.E. INCOME- TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA AND HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AT DELHI HAS RIGHTLY RE CASE AFTER DUE APPROVAL FROM HIS JURISDICTIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX AND ISSUED NOTICE BEFORE ACTUALLY TRANSFERRING THE CASE. 19. THE APPELLANT NEVER RAISED THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION 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 KOLKA WAS A POSSIBILITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER 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. ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. REQUIRED TO BE INITIATED OR TAKEN BY THAT JURISDICTIONAL AO ONLY. HENCE OPENED THE CASE ON APPROVAL FROM HIGHER AUTHORITY AND ISSUED D OFF THE CASE U/S. 147/144 AS PER THE LAW 2010, CIT(A) RECORDED FOLLOWING ORDER SHEET ENTRY: EDINGS & FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF ONE PAPER ALONG WITH THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED, ORDER SHEET OF 147 PROCEEDINGS GIVEN. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT FILE 10 BY ORDER U/S 127. COPIES OF ORDER U/S 127 AND SECTION 1 51 APPROVED BY THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF DELHI A.O. WAS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE A.O. WHO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT HE DOES NOT SUBMIT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS EITHER BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR ASSESSING OFFICER R TAKEN OBJECTION REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF NEW DELHI OR INITIATION/CONTINUATION OF TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING SSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN WHEN THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON 08 -12- 2010. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ASKED FOR THE EXTENSION OF TIME FROM ASSESSING OFFICER E JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DID NOT TAX OFFICER, WARD (1) HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE RECORDS WERE NOT TRANSFERRED TO HIM AND WITH ITO WARD 3(3), NEW DELHI ON THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TRANSFER OF CASE RECORDS, THE JURISDICTION IS NOT TRANSFERRED AUTOMATICALLY SINCE THE ITO WARD 6(1), KOLKATA 1, NEW DELHI.' AND FURTHER, HE DECIDED THE ISSUE BY DISMISSING THE ASSESSEE'S ISSUE OF REOPENING U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, VIDE ICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT TAX ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE CHALLENGED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER TION 143(2)/148. THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN TRANSPORT CO. V. IAC [1991] LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT TO WHICH T HE PLEA OF THE JURISDICTION 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 [1992] 193 ITR 457 (CAL.) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD NOT RAISED THE OBJECTION AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE CASE BY THE ER OR WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AS IS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 124, THE SAME COULD NOT BE 10, BUT BEFORE THE TIME THE RECORDS WERE NOT E ASSESSING OFFICER, THE JURISDICTION 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 TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA AND HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AT DELHI HAS RIGHTLY RE -OPENED THE TAX AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 19. THE APPELLANT NEVER RAISED THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION 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 KOLKA TA. THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT NEW DELHI TO GET THE RECORDS TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO KOLKATA LIMITATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT KOLKATA. 20. FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN AND UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE LEGAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3) ON THIS ISSUE AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147/144 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 THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE I T ACT 1961 IS UPHELD OBJECTION BEING RAISED 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 SER VING THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND DURING ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THESE THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED.' AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BE SEEN THAT WHAT IS THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS, AS RECORDED BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT GIVEN, DURING COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT(A). THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS IS AS UNDER: DATE HAPPENING 1. 04-01-10 ORDER U/S L27 2. 23-03-10 PROPOSAL TO RE 3. 25-03-10 LD. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 4. 25-03-10 NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED AND SERVED BY ITO, WARD 5. 30-11-10 RECORD RECEIVED BY THE UNDER SIGNED FROM ITO, WARD 6. 03-12-10 THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 VIDE PETITION DATED 03 7. 03-12-10 NOTICE U/S 8. 29-12-10 ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 147/144 AS THERE WERE NON 6. WE FIND THAT THE AO IN HIS REMAND PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED BY CIT, DEL-1 ON 04- 01 NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 25 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 JURISDICTION AO ONLY. EVEN THE CIT( THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 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 THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMEN T 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 307 WHEREIN THE NON ACT, THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY AO WAS HELD TO BE VALID. FURTHER, THERE WAS RELIANCE BY SR. DR ON THE CASE LAW OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BRITISH I 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 ASSESSMENT PRO SUBMITTED TO IAC BUT DUE TO SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN JURISDICTION, UNLESS THE SAME BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED, THE ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT BE VITIATED. WE ARE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF LD. SR. D 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 TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTI 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 PREVIOUS YEARS ARE MEANT TO BE TRANSFERRED SIMULTANEOUSLY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHATEVER ARE ALSO INCLUDED THEREIN, SO THAT THE AO TO WHOM SU CH CASE IS 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 ISSUANCE OF NOTICES CONTAINED IN THE MAIN BODY OF SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY AND IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO REISSUE ANY NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY AO FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. FOR THIS, ASSESS 24 20. FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN AND UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE LEGAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3) ON THIS ISSUE AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147/144 OF 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 THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE I T ACT 1961 IS UPHELD TO BE VALID IN ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTION BEING RAISED 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 VING THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND DURING ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THESE THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED.' AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BE SEEN THAT WHAT IS THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS, AS RECORDED BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT GIVEN, DURING COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT(A). THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS IS AS UNDER: HAPPENING ORDER U/S L27 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, DELHI-I, NEW DELHI. PROPOSAL TO RE - OPEN THE CASE WAS SENT TO LD. ADDL. CIT, RANGE LD. ADDL. CIT, RANGE -3, ACCORDED THE APPROVAL FOR RE- OPEN THE CASE. NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED AND SERVED BY ITO, WARD - 3(3), NEW DELHI. RECORD RECEIVED BY THE UNDER SIGNED FROM ITO, WARD - 3(3), NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 VIDE PETITION DATED 03 NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) BOTH WERE ISSUED AND SERVED. ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 147/144 AS THERE WERE NON - COMPLIANCE WE FIND THAT THE AO IN HIS REMAND PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT WAS 01 -2010, REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR REOPENING ON 23- 03 NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 25 -03-2010 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 JURISDICTION AO ONLY. EVEN THE CIT( THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 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 T 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 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. FURTHER, THERE WAS RELIANCE BY SR. DR ON THE CASE LAW OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BRITISH I NDIA CORPN. LTD. [2011] 337 ITR 64 [2012] , WHEREIN ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION, BY AO FOR ASSESSMENT, U/S. 124 OF THE ACT THAT WHEN THE ITO HAD JURISDICTION WHEN ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS COMMENCED AND A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUBMITTED TO IAC BUT DUE TO SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN JURISDICTION, UNLESS THE SAME BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED, THE ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT BE VITIATED. WE ARE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF LD. SR. D 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 TAX TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTI ON U/S. 127 OF THE ACT. WE 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 WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHATEVER ARE ALSO INCLUDED THEREIN, SO THAT CH CASE IS 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 ISSUANCE OF NOTICES CONTAINED IN THE MAIN BODY OF SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY AND IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO REISSUE ANY NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY AO FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. FOR THIS, ASSESS ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. 20. FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN AND UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE LEGAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3) ON THIS ISSUE AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT OF 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 TO BE VALID IN ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTION BEING RAISED 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 VING THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND DURING ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THESE 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 EVENTS, AS RECORDED BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT GIVEN, DURING OPEN THE CASE WAS SENT TO LD. ADDL. CIT, RANGE -3, DELHI. OPEN THE CASE. 3(3), NEW DELHI. 3(3), NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 VIDE PETITION DATED 03 -12-10. 143(2) AND 142(1) BOTH WERE ISSUED AND SERVED. COMPLIANCE WE FIND THAT THE AO IN HIS REMAND PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT WAS 03 -2010 FOR ISSUANCE OF 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 JURISDICTION AO ONLY. EVEN THE CIT( A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 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 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 OBJECTION AS PER SECTION 124(2) READ WITH SECTION 124(4) OF THE ACT, THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY AO WAS HELD TO BE VALID. FURTHER, THERE WAS RELIANCE BY SR. DR ON THE CASE [2011] 337 ITR 64 [2012] , WHEREIN ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION, BY AO FOR ASSESSMENT, U/S. 124 OF THE ACT THAT CEEDINGS COMMENCED AND A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUBMITTED TO IAC BUT DUE TO SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN JURISDICTION, UNLESS THE SAME BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED, THE ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT BE VITIATED. WE ARE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF LD. SR. D R 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 ON U/S. 127 OF THE ACT. WE 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, OF THE SAME YEAR AS ALSO PREVIOUS YEARS ARE MEANT TO BE TRANSFERRED SIMULTANEOUSLY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR WHATEVER ARE ALSO INCLUDED THEREIN, SO THAT CH CASE IS 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 UCH PROCEEDINGS THE PROVISIONS IN REGARD TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICES CONTAINED IN THE MAIN BODY OF SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY AND IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO REISSUE ANY NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY AO FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. FOR THIS, ASSESS EE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LT. COL. PARAMJIT SINGH V. CIT TAXMAN 536 . 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 120, 124 AND 127 OF CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION HAS BEEN VESTED, BY DELEGATION BY THE STATUTE, ON THE COMMISSIONER HAVING JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE. THIS POWER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION, EMPO WERS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME INCOME- TAX BY ORDER OR DIRECTION, WHILE DIVESTING THESE AUTHORITIES OF THE POWER IN RESPECT OF PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES UNDER THE ACT CONFERRED EARLIER, MAY C AS HE MAY DIRECT. AS SOON AS SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION IS MADE COMPLETELY DIVESTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE AUTHORITIES SO LONG SO EMPOWERED, ALL PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THOSE WHICH MIGHT ARISE THEREA 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 CONSEQUENCE IS INEVITABLE WHEN THERE IS WITHDRAWAL OF JURISDICTION, WHICH MEANS AUTOMATIC EXTINCTION OF JURISDICTION OF ONE AUTHORITY WITH SIMULTANEOUS CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION ON ANOTHER AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ALL PENDING AND FUTURE PROCEEDINGS. EXPLANATION TO SECTION 127 OF THE ACT MAKES 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 DATE OF THE TRANSFER, AND ALSO INCLUDES ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER T HE ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR. THE WORD 'CASE' IS THUS USED IN A COMPREHENSIVE SENSE OF INCLUDING BOTH PENDING PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEEDINGS TO BE INSTITUTED IN THE FUTURE. CONSEQUENTLY, AN ORDER OF TRANSFER FOR ASSESSMENT OF TAX AND THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSFER MAY SIMPLY BE THAT ALL FUTURE PROCEEDINGS ARE TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE OFFICER TO WHOM THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRANSFERRED. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE REGARDING JURISDICTION AND FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT 1, DELHI, TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION FROM ITO, WARD AO I.E. ITO, WARD- 3(3), NEW DELHI ISSUING NOTICE U/ JURISDICTION FROM ITO, WARD PASSING OF ORDER BY CIT- 1, DELHI TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION FROM ITO, WARD TO ITO, WARD- 6(1), KOLKATA, THERE IS NO PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE ITO, DELHI AND THE TRANSFER ORDER FOR JURISDICTION WAS PASSED ON THAT DATE. THE CIT, DELHI TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION OF ACTION FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS LIES WITH THE ITO, WD U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 1 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 B ITO, WARD- 6(1), KOLKATA W.E.F. 04 QUASHED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 31. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF F IAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD VS VIJENDER SINGH (211 TAXMAN 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 ONCE THE CIT HIM UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT HAS TRANSFERRED THE POWER TO ASSESS THE PETITIONER ON 22.11.2011 FROM ACIT- 10(1) MUMBAI TO DCIT, CIRCLE IMP UGNED 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 REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE, THE PETITIONER IN JUNE- JULY, 2009 H EXCHANGE OF SEVERAL LETTERS, THE CIT ASSESS THE PETITIONER FROM ACIT MUMBAI DID NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE PETITIONER. 5. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ON TRANSFER OF THE JURISDICTION FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE, THE ADDITIONAL CIT, (TP) PUNE HAS ASSUMED JURISDICTION AND ACCORDINGLY ISSUED A 92CA OF THE ACT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 25 HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LT. COL. PARAMJIT SINGH V. CIT AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 120, 124 AND 127 OF THE ACT, THE PLENARY POWERS REGARDING CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION HAS BEEN VESTED, BY DELEGATION BY THE STATUTE, ON THE COMMISSIONER HAVING JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE. THIS POWER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION, WERS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX TO EFFECT REALIGNMENT OF JURISDICTION. THE COMMISSIONER OF TAX BY ORDER OR DIRECTION, WHILE DIVESTING THESE AUTHORITIES OF THE POWER IN RESPECT OF PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES UNDER THE ACT CONFERRED EARLIER, MAY C ONFER SUCH 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 AUTHORITIES SO LONG SO EMPOWERED, ALL PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THOSE WHICH MIGHT ARISE THEREA 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 CONSEQUENCE IS INEVITABLE OF JURISDICTION, WHICH MEANS AUTOMATIC EXTINCTION OF JURISDICTION OF ONE AUTHORITY WITH SIMULTANEOUS CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION ON ANOTHER AUTHORITY UNDER 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 DATE OF THE TRANSFER, AND ALSO INCLUDES ALL PROCEEDINGS HE ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR. THE WORD 'CASE' IS THUS USED IN A COMPREHENSIVE SENSE OF INCLUDING BOTH PENDING PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEEDINGS TO BE INSTITUTED IN THE FUTURE. CONSEQUENTLY, AN ORDER OF TRANSFER CAN BE VALIDLY MADE EVEN IF THERE BE NO PROCEEDINGS PENDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF TAX AND THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSFER MAY SIMPLY BE THAT ALL FUTURE PROCEEDINGS ARE TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE OFFICER TO WHOM THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRANSFERRED. THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE REGARDING JURISDICTION AND FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT 1, DELHI, TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION FROM ITO, WARD -3(3), NEW DELHI ON 04-01- 2010, SUBSEQUENT ACTION OF THE 3(3), NEW DELHI ISSUING 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 1, DELHI TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION FROM ITO, WARD - 3(3), NEW DELHI DATED 6(1), KOLKATA, THERE IS NO PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE ITO, DELHI AND THE TRANSFER ORDER FOR JURISDICTION WAS PASSED ON THAT DATE. THE CIT, DELHI - 1 PASSED ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT ON 01 TRANSFERRING 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 THE ITO, WD - 6(1), KOLKATA AND ONLY HE IS COMPETENT TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 1 48 OF THE ACT BY THE ITO, WARD 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 B 6(1), KOLKATA W.E.F. 04 -01- 2010. HENCE, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DATED 25.03.2010 IS IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE IAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD VS VIJENDER SINGH (211 TAXMAN 570) SUPPORT THE LEGAL GROUND CANVASSED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE US. THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FINDINGS OF THE SAID THE BASIC ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT ONCE THE CIT -10 M UMBAI IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN HIM UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT HAS TRANSFERRED THE POWER TO ASSESS THE PETITIONER ON 22.11.2011 FROM 10(1) MUMBAI TO DCIT, CIRCLE -1(2) PUNE, THEN THE ACIT- 10(1) WOULD HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE UGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012 AND THEREFORE, THE SAID NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012 IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ON SHIFTING THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE, THE JULY, 2009 H AD APPLIED FOR TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE. AFTER, EXCHANGE OF SEVERAL LETTERS, THE CIT - 10 MUMBAI BY HIS ORDER DATED 22.11.2011 TRANSFERRED THE POWERS TO ASSESS THE PETITIONER FROM ACIT -10(1) MUMBAI TO DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2) PUNE. THUS, F ROM 22.11.2011 ACIT MUMBAI DID NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE PETITIONER. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ON TRANSFER OF THE JURISDICTION 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 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 -2010. ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LT. COL. PARAMJIT SINGH V. CIT [1996] 89 THE ACT, THE PLENARY POWERS REGARDING CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION HAS BEEN VESTED, BY DELEGATION BY THE STATUTE, ON THE COMMISSIONER HAVING JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE. THIS POWER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION, TAX TO EFFECT REALIGNMENT OF JURISDICTION. THE COMMISSIONER OF TAX BY ORDER OR DIRECTION, WHILE DIVESTING THESE AUTHORITIES OF THE POWER IN RESPECT OF PERFORMANCE OF ONFER SUCH 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 AUTHORITIES SO LONG SO EMPOWERED, ALL PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THOSE WHICH MIGHT ARISE THEREA FTER, BEFORE 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 CONSEQUENCE IS INEVITABLE OF JURISDICTION, WHICH MEANS AUTOMATIC EXTINCTION OF JURISDICTION OF ONE AUTHORITY WITH SIMULTANEOUS CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION ON ANOTHER AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ALL PENDING 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 DATE OF THE TRANSFER, AND ALSO INCLUDES ALL PROCEEDINGS HE ACT WHICH MAY BE COMMENCED AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR. THE WORD 'CASE' IS THUS USED IN A COMPREHENSIVE SENSE OF INCLUDING BOTH PENDING PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEEDINGS TO BE INSTITUTED CAN BE VALIDLY MADE EVEN IF THERE BE NO PROCEEDINGS PENDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF TAX AND THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSFER MAY SIMPLY BE THAT ALL FUTURE PROCEEDINGS ARE TO TAKE THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE REGARDING JURISDICTION AND FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT - 2010, SUBSEQUENT ACTION OF THE 2010 IS INVALID BECAUSE THE 6(1), KOLKATA. AT THE TIME OF 3(3), NEW DELHI DATED 04-01-2010 6(1), KOLKATA, THERE IS NO PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE ITO, DELHI AND THE TRANSFER ORDER FOR 1 PASSED ORDER U/S. 127 OF THE ACT ON 01 -01-2010 6(1), KOLKATA AND THE JURISDICTION IN RESPECT TO EVERY 6(1), KOLKATA AND ONLY HE IS COMPETENT TO ISSUE NOTICE 48 OF THE ACT 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 B Y 2010. HENCE, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DATED 25.03.2010 IS WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE IAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD VS VIJENDER SINGH (211 TAXMAN 570) SUPPORT THE LEGAL GROUND CANVASSED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE US. THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FINDINGS OF THE SAID UMBAI IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN HIM UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT HAS TRANSFERRED THE POWER TO ASSESS THE PETITIONER ON 22.11.2011 FROM 10(1) WOULD HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE UGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012 AND THEREFORE, THE SAID NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012 IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ON SHIFTING THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE, THE AD APPLIED FOR TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE. AFTER, 10 MUMBAI BY HIS ORDER DATED 22.11.2011 TRANSFERRED THE POWERS TO ROM 22.11.2011 ACIT -10(1) IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ON TRANSFER OF THE JURISDICTION FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE, THE ADDITIONAL CIT, (TP) PUNE NOTICE DATED 29.03.2012 TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 6. HOWEVER, THE ACIT- 10(1) MUMBAI HAS ISSUED THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ON 30.03.2012 UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT WITH A VIEW TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT OBJECTED TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BY SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF CIT DATED 22.11.2011, THE ACIT- 10(1) WOULD HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI OR JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE IMPUGNED NOTIC THERE WAS NO REPLY, THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS FILED INTER ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT ONCE THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS/REASSESS THE PETITIONER VESTED IN THE ACIT 22.11.2011, THE ACIT- 10(1) MUMBAI WOULD CEASE TO HAVE POWER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE PETITIONER AND HENCE, THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY ACIT AND SET ASIDE. 7. IN THE AFFIDAVIT-IN- REPLY FILED BY THE DCIT CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012, THE CIT TRANSFER ORDER DATED 22.11.2011 FOR THE SAKE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE AND THEREFORE, THE NOTICE DAT 30.03.2012 WOULD BE VALID. IT IS THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER THAT NEITHER ANY NOTICE TO PASS 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. 8. MR. PINTO, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE ON INSTRUCTION FROM CIT 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 CORRIGENDUM ANY NOTICE REVENUE THAT THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONER. 9. ALTHOUGH IN THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY THE REVENUE CLAIMS TO HAVE ANNEXED A COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 NO SUCH ORDER WAS IN FACT ANNEXED TO THE AFFIDAVIT HEARING THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE ADMITTED THE LAPSE AND TENDERED A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.03.2012 ADDRESSED BY ACIT- 10(1) MUMBAI TO CIT THE COURT AS ALSO TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER. .. 11 . THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27/3/2012 PASSED BY CIT 12 . THE QUESTION THEREFORE TO BE CONSIDERED IS, WHEN THE CIT ASSESS/REASSESS THE PETITIONER FROM ACIT ACT AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONER ON 22.11.2011, MUMBAI IS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING A CORRIGENDUM ORDER ON 27.03.2012 BEHIND THE BACK OF THE PETITIONER & WHETHER THE ACIT- 10(1) MUMBAI IS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE DATED 30.03.2012 ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 WHICH IS PASSED WITHOUT ISSUING A NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER, WITHOUT HEARING THE PETITIONER AND WHICH IS UNCOMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER. 13. MR. PINTO, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE AND WITHOUT HEARING THE PETITIONER AND FURTHER ADMITS THAT THE SAID CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE PETITIONER TILL DATE AND THAT HE HAS TENDERED A COPY OF T ORDER UPON THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER TODAY IN COURT. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITS THAT ONCE THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT - IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2 14. IN OUR OPINION, THE CONDUCT OF ACIT THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE PETITIONER WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE CIT DCIT CIRCLE- 1(2) PUNE BY ORDER DATED 22.1 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 GROSS ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW. IF THERE WAS ANY TIME BARRING ISSUE, THE ACIT ASKED HIS COUNTERPART AT PUNE TO WHOM THE JURISDICTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS IN THE MATTER INSTEAD OF TAKING ST EPS TO CIRCUMVENT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. IT DOES NOT BEFIT ACIT INDULGE IN CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND WE STRONGLY CONDEMN THE CONDUCT OF ACIT IN THAT BEHALF. INSTEAD OF BRINGING TO BOOK THE PERSONS WHO CIRCUMVEN MUMBAI HAS HIMSELF INDULGED IN CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH IS TOTALLY DISGRACEFUL. 26 10(1) MUMBAI HAS ISSUED THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ON 30.03.2012 UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT WITH A VIEW TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2005- 06. THE ASSESSEE BY ITS LETTER DATED 24.04.2012 OBJECTED TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BY SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF CIT DATED 22.11.2011, 10(1) WOULD HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI OR JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE IMPUGNED NOTIC E 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/REASSESS THE PETITIONER VESTED IN THE ACIT - 10(1) IS DIVESTED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT 10(1) MUMBAI WOULD CEASE TO HAVE POWER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE PETITIONER AND HENCE, THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY ACIT - 10(1) MUMBAI BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED 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 MUMBAI HAS TEMPORARILY WITHDRAWN/CANCELLED THE EARLIER TRANSFER ORDER DATED 22.11.2011 FOR THE SAKE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE AND THEREFORE, THE NOTICE DAT 30.03.2012 WOULD BE VALID. IT IS THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER THAT NEITHER ANY NOTICE TO PASS A CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER NOR THE ALLEGED CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 HAS BEEN SERVED LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE ON INSTRUCTION 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 CORRIGENDUM ANY NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER NOR IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONER. ALTHOUGH IN THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY THE REVENUE CLAIMS TO HAVE ANNEXED A COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER SUCH ORDER WAS IN FACT ANNEXED TO THE AFFIDAVIT -IN- REPLY. IT IS ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE ADMITTED THE LAPSE AND TENDERED A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.03.2012 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. . THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27/3/2012 PASSED BY CIT -10 MUMBAI READS THUS:- . THE QUESTION THEREFORE TO BE CONSIDERED IS, WHEN 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 PETITIONER ON 22.11.2011, WHETHER THE CIT- 10 MUMBAI AT THE INSTANCE OF ACIT MUMBAI IS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING A CORRIGENDUM ORDER ON 27.03.2012 BEHIND THE BACK OF THE PETITIONER & 10(1) MUMBAI IS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE DATED 30.03.2012 ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 WHICH IS PASSED WITHOUT ISSUING A NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER, WITHOUT HEARING THE PETITIONER AND WHICH IS UNCOMMUNICATED TO THE MR. PINTO, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE REVENUE DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE AND WITHOUT HEARING THE PETITIONER AND FURTHER ADMITS THAT THE SAID CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE PETITIONER TILL DATE AND THAT HE HAS TENDERED A COPY OF T ORDER UPON THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER TODAY IN COURT. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITS THAT ONCE THE CORRIGENDUM - 10 MUMBAI ON 27.03.2012 THE ACIT- 10(1) MUMBAI WAS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2 012. IN OUR OPINION, THE CONDUCT OF ACIT -10(1) MUMBAI AS WELL AS CIT- 10 MUMBAI IS HIGHLY DEPLORABLE. ONCE THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE PETITIONER WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE CIT - 10 MUMBAI FROM ACIT 1(2) PUNE BY ORDER DATED 22.1 1.2011 IT WAS TOTALLY IMPROPER ON THE PART OF ACIT 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 GROSS ABUSE 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 STEPS IN THE EPS TO CIRCUMVENT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. IT DOES NOT BEFIT ACIT INDULGE IN CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND WE STRONGLY CONDEMN THE CONDUCT OF ACIT IN THAT BEHALF. INSTEAD OF BRINGING TO BOOK THE PERSONS WHO CIRCUMVEN T THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE ACIT MUMBAI HAS HIMSELF INDULGED IN CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH IS TOTALLY DISGRACEFUL. ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. 10(1) MUMBAI HAS ISSUED THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ON 30.03.2012 UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE 06. THE ASSESSEE BY ITS LETTER DATED 24.04.2012 OBJECTED TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BY SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF CIT DATED 22.11.2011, E 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 10(1) IS DIVESTED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT -10 MUMBAI DATED 10(1) MUMBAI WOULD CEASE TO HAVE POWER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE PETITIONER AND 10(1) MUMBAI BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED (1) MUMBAI DATED 8.10.2012 IT IS STATED THAT BY A 10 MUMBAI HAS TEMPORARILY WITHDRAWN/CANCELLED THE EARLIER TRANSFER ORDER DATED 22.11.2011 FOR THE SAKE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE AND THEREFORE, THE NOTICE DAT ED 30.03.2012 WOULD BE VALID. IT IS THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER THAT NEITHER ANY NOTICE TO PASS A CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER NOR THE ALLEGED CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 HAS BEEN SERVED 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 WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER NOR IT IS THE CASE OF THE ALTHOUGH IN THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY THE REVENUE CLAIMS TO HAVE ANNEXED A COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER REPLY. IT IS ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE ADMITTED THE LAPSE AND TENDERED A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.03.2012 THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 TO 10 MUMBAI HAS TRANSFERRED THE JURISDICTION TO 1(2) PUNE UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE 10 MUMBAI AT THE INSTANCE OF ACIT -10(1) MUMBAI IS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING A CORRIGENDUM ORDER ON 27.03.2012 BEHIND THE BACK OF THE PETITIONER & 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 ISSUING A NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER, WITHOUT HEARING THE PETITIONER AND WHICH IS UNCOMMUNICATED TO THE HE REVENUE DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE AND WITHOUT HEARING THE PETITIONER AND FURTHER ADMITS THAT THE SAID CORRIGENDUM ORDER WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE PETITIONER TILL DATE AND THAT HE HAS TENDERED A COPY OF T HE SAID CORRIGENDUM ORDER UPON THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER TODAY IN COURT. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITS THAT ONCE THE CORRIGENDUM 10(1) MUMBAI WAS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE 10 MUMBAI IS HIGHLY DEPLORABLE. ONCE 10 MUMBAI FROM ACIT -10(1) MUMBAI TO 1.2011 IT WAS TOTALLY IMPROPER ON THE PART OF ACIT -10(1) MUMBAI 10, MUMBAI TO PASS A CORRIGENDUM ORDER WITH A VIEW TO CIRCUMVENT THE JURISDICTIONAL 10 MUMBAI IN OUR OPINION, WAS IN 10(1) MUMBAI OUGHT TO HAVE ASKED HIS COUNTERPART AT PUNE TO WHOM THE JURISDICTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS IN THE EPS TO CIRCUMVENT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. IT DOES NOT BEFIT ACIT -10(1) MUMBAI TO INDULGE IN CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND WE STRONGLY CONDEMN THE CONDUCT OF ACIT -10(1) MUMBAI T THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE ACIT -10(1) MUMBAI HAS HIMSELF INDULGED IN CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH IS TOTALLY DISGRACEFUL. 15. IN ANY EVENT, THE CIT- 10 MUMBAI OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SUCCUMBED TO THE UNJUST DEMANDS OF ACIT INSTEAD OUGHT T O HAVE ADMONISHED THE ACIT OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT WHICH EMPOWERS THE CIT TO TEMPORARILY WITHDRAW THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT FOR THE S CONVENIENCE OR OTHERWISE. IF THE CIT SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT WAS REQUIRED TO BE RECALLED FOR ANY VALID REASONS, THEN, THE CIT TO HAVE ISSUED NOTICE TO THAT EFFECT TO THE PETITIONER AND AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONER OUGHT TO HAVE PASSED ANY ORDER AS HE DEEMED FIT AND SERVE THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER. 16 . IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE CIT PET ITIONER 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 F 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 ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 PASSED ALLEGEDLY BY THE CIT MUMBAI AT THE BEHEST OF ACIT THAT THE CIT- 10 MUMBAI HAD NO JURISDICTION TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT, IN THE FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE IMPUGNED CORRIGENDUM OR PETITIONER WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER, WITHOUT HEARING THE PETITIONER AND ADMITTEDLY UNCOMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER TILL DATE, WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL EXISTENCE AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03 .2012 BASED ON THE LEGALLY NON SUSTAINED. 32. BEFORE US THE LD. CIT, DR SUPPORTED THE AOS ORDER BY PLACING STRONG RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF ABHISHEK JAI AND SS AHLUWALIA (SUPRA). AS OBSERVED EARLIER, THESE DECISIONS 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 NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE BASIS OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN ICICI BANK, NOIDA. IN THAT CASE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY ASSESSED IN DELHI WAS NOT INTIMATED TO THE AO AT NOIDA NOR DID THE ASSESSEE MENTION HIS PAN WITH THE ICICI BANK. 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 NO THE COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 149 EXPIRED ON 31ST MARCH, 2016, THAT THE ASSESSEE INTIMATED THE AO AT NOIDA THAT HE HAD BEEN REGULARLY ASSESSED IN DELHI. ON THESE FACTS, TH 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 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAITED FOR THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION TO EXPIRE BEFORE RAISING THIS OBJECTION. IN ABSENCE OF ANY ORDER REFERENCE TO ADDRESS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ICICI BANK IN WHICH CASH DEPOSITS WERE FOUND, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS DEBARRED FROM RAISING THE OBJECTION TO AOS JURISDICTION IN TERMS OF SECT THE APPELLANT HAD MENTIONED ITS PAN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR AY 2015 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 CA THE MONTH OF JUNE 2016. ON THESE FACTS WE THEREFORE 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 RE 33. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF S.S. AHLUWALIA (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT DELHI FROM 1980-81 TO 1983 - RETURNS AT DIMAPUR. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENE INVESTIGATION, DELHI, ON THE BASIS OF CBI SEARCH. WHEN THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION CAME BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE SHIFTS HIS RESIDENCE 27 10 MUMBAI OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SUCCUMBED TO THE UNJUST DEMANDS OF ACIT O HAVE ADMONISHED THE ACIT - 10(1) FOR MAKING SUCH UNJUST REQUEST. THE CIT OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT WHICH EMPOWERS THE CIT TO TEMPORARILY WITHDRAW THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT FOR THE S AKE 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 REQUIRED TO BE RECALLED FOR ANY VALID REASONS, THEN, THE CIT THAT EFFECT TO THE PETITIONER AND AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONER OUGHT TO HAVE PASSED ANY ORDER AS HE DEEMED FIT AND SERVE THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER. . IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE CIT - 10 MUMBAI HAS NOT ISSUED ANY NOTICE AND HAS NOT HEARD THE ITIONER 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 F OR THE FIRST TIME TODAY IN COURT. . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE 10(1) MUMBAI BASED ON THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 PASSED ALLEGEDLY BY THE CIT ACIT - 10(1) MUMBAI AND IN GROSS ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW. APART FROM THE FACT 10 MUMBAI HAD NO JURISDICTION TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT, IN THE FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE IMPUGNED CORRIGENDUM OR DER PASSED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE PETITIONER WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER, WITHOUT HEARING THE PETITIONER AND ADMITTEDLY UNCOMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER TILL DATE, WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL EXISTENCE AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED .2012 BASED ON THE LEGALLY NON - EXISTENT CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 CANNOT BE BEFORE US THE LD. CIT, DR SUPPORTED THE AOS ORDER BY PLACING STRONG RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF ABHISHEK JAI AND SS AHLUWALIA (SUPRA). AS OBSERVED EARLIER, THESE DECISIONS 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 NOIDA HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE BASIS OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN ICICI BANK, NOIDA. IN THAT CASE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY ASSESSED IN DELHI WAS NOT INTIMATED TO THE AO AT NOIDA NOR DID THE ASSESSEE MENTION HIS PAN WITH THE ICICI BANK. EVEN THE ASSESSEES 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 NO IDA WAS FUNCTIONING. THE COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 149 EXPIRED ON 31ST MARCH, 2016, THAT THE ASSESSEE INTIMATED THE AO AT NOIDA THAT HE HAD BEEN REGULARLY ASSESSED IN DELHI. ON THESE FACTS, TH E 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 THAT 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 HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS DEBARRED FROM RAISING THE OBJECTION TO AOS JURISDICTION IN TERMS OF SECT ION 124(3)(B). IN THE INSTANT CASE, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAD MENTIONED ITS PAN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR AY 2015 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 CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE SOLELY VESTED WITH AO AT RANCHI IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2016. ON THESE FACTS WE THEREFORE 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 RE NDERED WAS VASTLY DIFFERENT. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF S.S. AHLUWALIA (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT DELHI - 84. FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984- 85 TO 1987 RETURNS AT DIMAPUR. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENE D U/S 148 BY THE ACIT, INVESTIGATION, DELHI, ON THE BASIS OF CBI SEARCH. WHEN THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION CAME BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE SHIFTS HIS RESIDENCE ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. 10 MUMBAI OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SUCCUMBED TO THE UNJUST DEMANDS OF ACIT -10(1) AND 10(1) FOR MAKING SUCH UNJUST REQUEST. THE CIT -10 MUMBAI OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT WHICH EMPOWERS THE CIT TO TEMPORARILY AKE OF ADMINISTRATIVE 10 MUMBAI WAS HONESTLY OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT WAS REQUIRED TO BE RECALLED FOR ANY VALID REASONS, THEN, THE CIT -10 MUMBAI OUGHT THAT EFFECT TO THE PETITIONER AND AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONER OUGHT TO HAVE PASSED 10 MUMBAI HAS NOT ISSUED ANY NOTICE AND HAS NOT HEARD THE ITIONER 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 OR THE FIRST TIME TODAY IN COURT. . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE 10(1) MUMBAI BASED ON THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 PASSED ALLEGEDLY BY THE CIT -10 10(1) MUMBAI AND IN GROSS ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW. APART FROM THE FACT 10 MUMBAI HAD NO JURISDICTION TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF DER PASSED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE PETITIONER WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER, WITHOUT HEARING THE PETITIONER AND ADMITTEDLY UNCOMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER TILL DATE, WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL EXISTENCE AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED EXISTENT CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 CANNOT BE BEFORE US THE LD. CIT, DR SUPPORTED THE AOS ORDER BY PLACING STRONG RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF ABHISHEK JAI N VSITO (SUPRA) AND SS AHLUWALIA (SUPRA). AS OBSERVED EARLIER, THESE DECISIONS WERE RENDERED IN TOTALLY DIFFERENT FACTUAL CONTEXT AND THEREFORE THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THESE DECISIONS NOIDA HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE BASIS OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN ICICI BANK, NOIDA. IN THAT CASE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY ASSESSED IN DELHI WAS NOT INTIMATED TO THE AO AT EVEN THE ASSESSEES 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 IDA WAS FUNCTIONING. THE COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 149 EXPIRED ON 31ST MARCH, 2016, THAT THE ASSESSEE INTIMATED THE AO AT NOIDA E 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 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAITED FOR THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION TO EXPIRE 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 HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS DEBARRED FROM RAISING THE ION 124(3)(B). IN THE INSTANT CASE, 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 SE OF THE ASSESSEE SOLELY VESTED WITH AO AT RANCHI IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2016. ON THESE FACTS WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE FACTUAL SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF S.S. AHLUWALIA (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT DELHI 85 TO 1987 -88, FILED HIS D U/S 148 BY THE ACIT, INVESTIGATION, DELHI, ON THE BASIS OF CBI SEARCH. WHEN THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION CAME BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE SHIFTS HIS RESIDENCE ETC., THE AO OF THE PLACE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTE AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IN SUCH CASE AN ORDER U/S 127 IS REQUIRED 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 (SUPRA) CANNOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE. 34. WE NOTE THAT IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS RAISED THE LD. CIT, DR RELIED ON THE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS (SUPRA). AS NOTED, THE FACTS OF 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 CONTEXT OF THE FACTS WHICH ARE BEFORE THE COURT. IT IS THEREFORE SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION T HONBLE COURT MUST BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT FOR CONSIDERATION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SUN ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD (198 ITR 297) HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOW IT IS NEITHER DESIRABLE NOR PERMISSIBLE TO PICK OUT A WORD OR A SENTENCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TREAT IT TO BE THE COMPLETE 'LAW' DECLARED BY THE COURT. THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REA JUDGMENT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED 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 DECISION 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 PICK OUT WORDS OR SENTENCES FROM THE JUDGMENT, DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY PROCEEDINGS. 35. COMING BACK TO THE ADMITTED FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(1), KOLKATA FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2017 PURSUANT TO TRANSFER OF CASE ORDEREDBY PCIT, CENTRAL PATN WITHOUT THERE BEING VALID ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION SUCH AN ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MOON (2010) 321 ITR 362 (S.C) OF A LEGALLY VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS MANDATORY FOR USURPING JURISDICTION TO FRAME 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 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 TWO QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION IN HOTEL BLUE MOON'S CASE2 THE FIRST QUESTION WAS WHETHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WOULD BE MANDATORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION OBSERVED:- '3. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HELD, WHILE AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF CIT (A) THAT NON UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND THE SAME IS CURABLE. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, THE FOLLOWI CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, THEY WERE: '(1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME 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 SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SHOULD BE DELETED OR SET ASIDE?' 4. THE HIGH COURT, DISAGREEING WITH THE TRIBUNAL, HELD, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142 AND SUB SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143 WILL HAVE 28 ETC., THE AO OF THE PLACE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTE D OR OTHERWISE WILL HAVE JURISDICTION AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IN SUCH CASE AN ORDER U/S 127 IS REQUIRED 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. WE NOTE THAT IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS RAISED THE LD. CIT, DR RELIED ON THE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS (SUPRA). AS NOTED, THE FACTS OF 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 CONTEXT OF THE FACTS WHICH ARE BEFORE THE COURT. IT IS THEREFORE SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION T HAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE COURT MUST BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT FOR CONSIDERATION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SUN ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD (198 ITR 297) HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOW S: IT IS NEITHER DESIRABLE NOR PERMISSIBLE TO PICK OUT A WORD OR A SENTENCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TREAT IT TO BE THE COMPLETE 'LAW' DECLARED BY THE COURT. THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REA D AS A WHOLE AND THE OBSERVATIONS FROM THE JUDGMENT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED 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 THE DECISION 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 PICK OUT WORDS OR SENTENCES FROM THE JUDGMENT, DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, TO SUPPORT THEIR COMING BACK TO THE ADMITTED FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE ACIT, 3(1), KOLKATA FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2017 PURSUANT TO TRANSFER OF CASE ORDEREDBY PCIT, CENTRAL PATN A DATED 03.11.2017 U/S. 127 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT THERE BEING VALID ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION SUCH AN ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V (2010) 321 ITR 362 (S.C) WHEREIN THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT ISSUE OF A LEGALLY VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS MANDATORY FOR USURPING JURISDICTION TO FRAME 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 AT THE OUTSET, IT MUST BE STATED THAT OUT OF TWO QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION IN HOTEL BLUE MOON'S CASE2 THE FIRST QUESTION WAS WHETHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WOULD BE MANDATORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS '3. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HELD, WHILE AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF CIT (A) THAT NON UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND THE SAME IS CURABLE. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, THE FOLLOWI NG TWO QUESTIONS OF LAW WERE RAISED FOR CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, THEY WERE: '(1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME -L IMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME 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 TAX (APPEALS), THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SHOULD BE DELETED OR SET ASIDE?' 4. THE HIGH COURT, DISAGREEING WITH THE TRIBUNAL, HELD, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142 AND SUB SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143 WILL HAVE MANDATORY APPLICATION IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. D OR OTHERWISE WILL HAVE JURISDICTION AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IN SUCH CASE AN ORDER U/S 127 IS REQUIRED TO BE PASSED. WHILE GOING THROUGH THE DECISION, WE NOTE THAT THERE WAS ALSO AN ORDER U/S 127 OF THE ACT AND 20, NEW DELHI. THUS, THE CASE OF S.S. AHLUWALIA WE NOTE THAT IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS RAISED THE LD. CIT, DR RELIED ON THE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS (SUPRA). AS NOTED, 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 CONTEXT OF THE FACTS WHICH ARE HAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE COURT MUST BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT FOR CONSIDERATION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SUN IT IS NEITHER DESIRABLE NOR PERMISSIBLE TO PICK OUT A WORD OR A SENTENCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TREAT IT TO BE THE COMPLETE D AS A WHOLE AND THE OBSERVATIONS FROM THE JUDGMENT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED 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 THE DECISION 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 PICK OUT WORDS OR SENTENCES FROM THE JUDGMENT, THE COURT, TO SUPPORT THEIR COMING BACK TO THE ADMITTED FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE ACIT, 3(1), KOLKATA FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2017 PURSUANT TO A DATED 03.11.2017 U/S. 127 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT THERE BEING VALID ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION SUCH AN CIT V HOTEL BLUE E SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT ISSUE OF A LEGALLY VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS MANDATORY FOR USURPING JURISDICTION TO FRAME SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND ABSENCE OF A VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS NOT BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL(108 TAXMANN.COM 183). THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS ARE AS AT THE OUTSET, IT MUST BE STATED THAT OUT OF TWO QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION IN HOTEL BLUE MOON'S CASE2 THE FIRST QUESTION WAS WHETHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WOULD BE 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS '3. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HELD, WHILE AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF CIT (A) THAT NON -ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND THE SAME IS CURABLE. IN THE APPEAL FILED NG TWO QUESTIONS OF LAW WERE RAISED FOR '(1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION IMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS MANDATORY? AND (2) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED TAX (APPEALS), THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER 4. THE HIGH COURT, DISAGREEING WITH THE TRIBUNAL, HELD, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142 AND SUB - MANDATORY APPLICATION IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REPUDIATION OF RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 158 PROCEEDS TO MAKE AN INQUIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE HIGH COURT ANSWERED THE QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED IN AFFIRMATIVE A ND IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE THEREAFTER APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR SPECIAL LEAVE UNDER ARTICLE 136, AND THE SAME WAS GRANTED, AND HENCE THIS APPEAL. 13. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS BATCH 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 27. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE E EXPECTED TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142, SUB THE PURPOSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSE THE REVENUE, SINCE WE DO NOT SEE 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 158- BC(A) PROCEEDS TO MAKE AN ENQUIRY OF SECTION 142, SUB - 6. THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, REMAINS WHETHER SECTION 292BB WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT ON AND FROM 01.04.2008 HAS EFFECTED ANY CHANGE. SAID SECTION 292BB IS TO '292BB. NOTICE DEEMED TO BE VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. ANY PROCEEDING OR COOPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UNDER ANY PROVISI HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY UNDER THIS ACT 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: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE 7. A CLOSER LOOK AT SECTION 292BB SHOWS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON WAS DULY SERVED AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD B E PRECLUDED FROM TAKING 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, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE, SINCE THE RESPONDENT HAD PARTICIP PROCEEDINGS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB WOULD BE A COMPLETE ANSWER. ON THE OTHER HAND, MR. ANKIT VIJAYWARGIA, LEARNED ADVOCATE, APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NEVER ISSUED WHICH W THE ORDERS PASSED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE STAND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT BEING PREREQUISITE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH NOTICE, THE ENTIRE PR 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 9. ACCORDING TO SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, IF THE ASSESSEE HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, BY WAY OF LEGAL FICTION, NOTICE WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE VALID EVEN IF THERE BE INFRACTIONS AS DETAILED IN SAID SECTION. THE SCOPE OF THE PROPER AND VALID IF THERE WAS REQUISITE 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 NOTICE MUST HAVE EMANATED FROM THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS ONLY THE INFIRMITIES IN THE MANNER OF SERVICE 29 OFFICER IN REPUDIATION OF RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 158 PROCEEDS TO MAKE AN INQUIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE HIGH COURT ANSWERED THE QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED IN ND IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE THEREAFTER APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR SPECIAL LEAVE UNDER ARTICLE 136, AND THE SAME WAS GRANTED, AND HENCE THIS 13. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION 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? THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE E XPRESSION 'SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY' INDICATES THAT IT IS NOT EXPECTED TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142, SUB - SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143 STRICTLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSE THE REVENUE, SINCE WE DO NOT SEE 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 BC(A) PROCEEDS TO MAKE AN ENQUIRY , HE HAS NECESSARILY TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS - SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143.' THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, REMAINS WHETHER SECTION 292BB WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT ON AND FROM 01.04.2008 HAS EFFECTED ANY CHANGE. SAID SECTION 292BB IS TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT: '292BB. NOTICE DEEMED TO BE VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR COOPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UNDER ANY PROVISI ON OF THIS ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY UNDER THIS ACT NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR (C) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT.' A CLOSER LOOK AT SECTION 292BB SHOWS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON WAS DULY SERVED AND THE E PRECLUDED FROM TAKING 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, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE, SINCE THE RESPONDENT HAD PARTICIP PROCEEDINGS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB WOULD BE A COMPLETE ANSWER. ON THE OTHER HAND, MR. ANKIT VIJAYWARGIA, LEARNED ADVOCATE, APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NEVER ISSUED WHICH W THE ORDERS PASSED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE STAND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT BEING PREREQUISITE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH NOTICE, THE ENTIRE PR OCEEDINGS WOULD BE INVALID. 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 292BB OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, IF THE ASSESSEE HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, BY WAY OF LEGAL FICTION, NOTICE WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE VALID EVEN IF THERE BE INFRACTIONS AS DETAILED IN SAID SECTION. THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISION IS TO MAKE SERVICE OF NOTICE HAVING CERTAIN INFIRMITIES TO BE PROPER AND VALID IF THERE WAS REQUISITE 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 NOTICE MUST HAVE EMANATED FROM THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS ONLY THE INFIRMITIES IN THE MANNER OF SERVICE ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. 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 ND IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE THEREAFTER APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR SPECIAL LEAVE UNDER ARTICLE 136, AND THE SAME WAS GRANTED, AND HENCE THIS OF APPEALS IS: WHETHER SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME IS A B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961? XPRESSION 'SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY' INDICATES THAT IT IS NOT SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143 STRICTLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE REVENUE, SINCE WE DO NOT SEE 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 , HE HAS NECESSARILY TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, REMAINS WHETHER SECTION 292BB WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT ON AND FROM THE FOLLOWING EFFECT: - WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR COOPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE ON OF THIS ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY UNDER THIS ACT PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH A CLOSER LOOK AT SECTION 292BB SHOWS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON WAS DULY SERVED AND THE E PRECLUDED FROM TAKING 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, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE, SINCE THE RESPONDENT HAD PARTICIP ATED IN THE ON THE OTHER HAND, MR. ANKIT VIJAYWARGIA, LEARNED ADVOCATE, APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NEVER ISSUED WHICH W AS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDERS PASSED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE STAND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT BEING PREREQUISITE, IN 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 ACCORDING TO SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, IF THE ASSESSEE HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, BY WAY OF LEGAL FICTION, NOTICE WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE VALID EVEN IF THERE BE INFRACTIONS AS DETAILED IN PROVISION IS TO MAKE SERVICE OF NOTICE HAVING CERTAIN INFIRMITIES TO BE PROPER AND VALID IF THERE WAS REQUISITE 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 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 UPHOLD THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 143(3) FOR AY 2015 ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE NO VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS IS THE AO WHO HELD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 29.12.2017 WAS LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND THEREFORE IS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THEREFORE QUASHED. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY SUCCEEDS ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US. 13. IN THIS CASE NO NOTICE OF REOPENING U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. JURISDICTION SO THAT HE BELIEVES THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION. HENCE IT IS NULL AND VOID. IT IS NOT A LEGAL NOTI ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 13/12/2016, IS BAD IN LAW. 14. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS THAT LAY ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT QUESTION. THE LETTER FROM NSE STATES ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE NSE STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED INCOME FROM DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS, THE QUESTION OF MAKING ADDIT THUS, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE. 15. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ORDER IS BEING PRONOUNCED AFTER NINETY (90) DAYS OF HEARING. HOWEVER, TAKING NOTE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE COVID-19 PA NDEMIC AND LOCKDOWN, THE PERIOD OF LOCKDOWN DAYS NEED TO BE EXCLUDED. FOR COMING TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, I RELY UPON THE DECISION OF THE CO MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF 6103/MUM/2018, AS SESSMENT YEAR 2013 30 OF NOTICE THAT THE SECTION SEEKS TO CURE. THE SECTION IS NOT INTENDED TO CURE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF . SINCE THE FACTS ON RECORD ARE CLEAR THAT NO NOTICE 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 FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 143(3) FOR AY 2015 ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE NO VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS IS THE AO WHO HELD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 29.12.2017 WAS LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND THEREFORE IS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THEREFORE QUASHED. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY SUCCEEDS ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US. IN THIS CASE NO NOTICE OF REOPENING U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. NO REASONS WERE RECORDED BY THE JURISDICTION SO THAT HE BELIEVES THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION. HENCE IT IS NULL AND VOID. IT IS NOT A LEGAL NOTI CE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THUS, ON THIS COUNT ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 13/12/2016, IS BAD IN LAW. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS THAT LAY ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED THE INCOME IN QUESTION. THE LETTER FROM NSE STATES THE FACTS WHICH ARE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE WHEN THE NSE STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED INCOME FROM DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS, THE QUESTION OF MAKING ADDIT ION ON THIS GROUND THUS, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ORDER IS BEING PRONOUNCED AFTER NINETY (90) DAYS OF HEARING. HOWEVER, TAKING NOTE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE NDEMIC AND LOCKDOWN, THE PERIOD OF LOCKDOWN DAYS NEED TO BE EXCLUDED. FOR COMING TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, I RELY UPON THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LIMITED IN ITA NO. 6264/MUM/2018 & SESSMENT YEAR 2013 -14, ORDER DT. 14 TH MAY, 2020. ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. OF NOTICE THAT THE SECTION SEEKS TO CURE. THE SECTION IS NOT INTENDED TO CURE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ARE CLEAR THAT NO NOTICE 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 FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER 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 IS SUED BY THE AO WHO HELD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 29.12.2017 WAS LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND THEREFORE IS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THEREFORE QUASHED. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY SUCCEEDS ON THE PRELIMINARY IN THIS CASE NO NOTICE OF REOPENING U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING NO REASONS WERE RECORDED BY THE JURISDICTION SO THAT HE BELIEVES THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION. THUS, ON THIS COUNT ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 13/12/2016, IS BAD IN LAW. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED THE INCOME IN THE FACTS WHICH ARE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE WHEN THE NSE STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED INCOME FROM ON THIS GROUND DOES NOT ARISE. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ORDER IS BEING PRONOUNCED AFTER NINETY (90) DAYS OF HEARING. HOWEVER, TAKING NOTE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE NDEMIC AND LOCKDOWN, THE PERIOD OF LOCKDOWN DAYS NEED TO BE EXCLUDED. ORDINATE BENCH OF THE DCIT VS. JSW LIMITED IN ITA NO. 6264/MUM/2018 & 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE DATED : 29.05.2020 {SC SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD C/O. S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES 2, GARSTIN PLACE 2 ND FLOOR SUITE NO. 203 OFF HARE STREET KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 700 001 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3), KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 31 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 29 TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. SD/- [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C/O. S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES 4(3), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 2484/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES