THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI V. M/S. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3658/MUM/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8185 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C CHHOTARAY
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH VYAS
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 263; 132; 28; 154; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P K BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 193 & 3745/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 TATA SONS LIMITED, BOMBAY HOUSE, HOMI MODY STREET, MUMBAI 400 001 PAN AAACT4060A VS. ACIT CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 3658/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 ACIT CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI. VS. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI 400 001 PAN AAACT4060A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE ASSESSEE : SHRI DINESH VYAS FOR THE REVENUE : SHRI P C CHHOTARAY DATE OF HEARING : 12.10 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 . 11 .2017 O R D E R PER P K BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT: THE APPEAL IN ITA NOS. 3658 & 3745/MUM/2006 ARE CRO SS APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 31.03.2006, W HILE THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 193/MUM/2006 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT TATA SONS LIMITED 2 PASSED U/S. 263. THE ORDER U/S. 263 HAS BEEN PASSE D BY THE CIT IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 1 54, DATED 05.08.2005. THE ORDER U/S. 154 HAS BEEN PASSED IN RESPECT OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 15. 03.2005, WHICH IS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ITA NO. 3658 & 3745/MU M/2006. 2. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 17.11.2016 HAS RA ISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.03.2005 PASSED BY THE ADD ITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 143(3) IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND / OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, ON THE GROUNDS AMONGST OTHERS, THAT HE FAILED TO ESTAB LISH THAT HE POSSESSED LEGAL AND VALID JURISDICTION UNDER THE AC T TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY THE HON'BLE TRIBU NAL BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE SAID ORDER. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LA CKED JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) DATED 15 .03.2005 AND TO EXERCISE THE POWERS OF PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THAT HE POSSESS SUCH JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON HIM UNDER SECTION 120(4)(B) OF THE ACT . ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER U/S 120(4)(B) CONFERRING JU RISDICTION ON THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSESSME NT ORDER DATED 15.03.2005 PASSED BY HIM NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE PROCEEDINGS HAVING BEEN INITIATED BY ISS UE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 15.10.2003 BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION U /S 127 TO THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 15.03.2005 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 4. THE PROCEEDINGS HAVING BEEN INITIATED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY (VIZ. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX), IN THE ABS ENCE OF AN ORDER TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION U/S 127 TO THE ADDI TIONAL TATA SONS LIMITED 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE HIGHER AUTHORITY (VIZ. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 5. AS HELD IN MEGA CORPORATION LTD VS ADDL. CIT ITA NO. 102/DEL/2014, IN A CASE WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY ONE OFFICER AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED B Y THE ANOTHER OFFICER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND ILL EGAL AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THIS CASE SHOULD B E QUASHED. IN ITA NO. 193/MUM/2006, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FO LLOWING SUPPLEMENTARY GROUNDS OF APPEAL: IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. C.I.T. - 2 , MUMBAI DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2005 U/S.263 OF THE ACT, PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 15 TH MARCH, 2005 BY THE AO IS TO BE QUASHED, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FAC T AND IN THE EVENT THAT THE SAID ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS QUASHED AS PASSED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW BY THE HON. INCOME TAX APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL . THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATE S TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 15.03.2005. WE, THEREF ORE, DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE ISSUE FIRST RELATING TO THE ADMISSION OF THE AD DITIONAL GROUND. 3. THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT WITH REGARD TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ARGUED IN DETAIL AND ULTIMATELY MADE THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SYNOPSIS, WHICH READ AS UNDER: 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AS SESSEE M/S TATA SONS LIMITED FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). A LOOK AT THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL WOULD SHOW THAT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTI ON OF THE TATA SONS LIMITED 4 ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. IT CHA LLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ON MERITS. 4. THE CIT(A) GAVE FULL HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED ALL THE GROUND OF APPEAL IN DEPTH. HE PASSED A DETAILED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31 ST MARCH 2006 RUNNING INTO 55 PAGES PARTLY ALLOWING T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BOTH THE RE VENUE AND THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DATED 9 TH JUNE 2006. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DATED 12 TH JUNE 2006. 6. A LOOK AT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ONLY ON MERITS. IT DID NOT CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER) FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS 7. THEREAFTER, SUDDENLY, AFTER ABOUT TEN AND HALF Y EARS, ON 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2016, IN A CASUAL MANNER, THE ASSESSEE FI LED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS SEEKING QUASHING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PA SSED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADD ITIONAL COMMISSIONER LACKED JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. EXTRACTS OF THE FORWARDING LETTER IS REPRODUCED BEL OW: 'DELHI BENCH OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD. V. ADDITIONAL CIT (ITA NO.L02/DEL/ 2014) DECIDED ON 21/9/2015 ON THE FACTS SIMILAR TO THE AF ORESAID APPEALS OF THE APPELLANT HAS HELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. THIS ORDER OF THE HON ' BLE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN RECENTLY REPORTED AND ON TH E BASIS THEREOF, WE PROPOSE TO FILE THE ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED EN OUR CASE. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY FILE THE E NCLOSED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE APPEALS REFERRE D TO ABOVE AND FILED BY US WITH A REQUEST THAT THESE GRO UNDS MAY PLEASE BE ADJUDICATED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED HEREIN GO TO THE VERY ROO T OF THE MATTER AND DEAL WITH THE VERY JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE ORDER. THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS CAN BE ADMITTED IN THE INTERESTS OF TATA SONS LIMITED 5 SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE RA ISED IN A BONA FIDE MANNER WITHOUT INDULGING IN DELAYI NG TACTICS. IN THIS CONNECTION WE WISH TO RELY ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND THE HON'BLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT............ ' SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WERE REPRODUCE D. WHEN THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, TOLD THAT SIMILAR ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND IN THE CASE OF TATA COMMUNICAT IONS LTD. FOR A.Y. 2002- 03, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2001-02 HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AND THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT, COPY OF THE QUESTIONS OF LAW AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID QUE STION OF LAW AND APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT FORM PART OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEING HEARING BY THE BENCH. SIMILAR LY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE CIT-DR INCORPORATED IN THE ORD ERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND TATA COMM UNICATIONS LTD. FOR A.Y. 2002-03 WILL ALSO HAVE A BEARING ON THE PRESENT APP EAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THERE HAS BEEN A DELAY IN FILIN G THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 15.03.2005, THE CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER ON 31.03.2006. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 12.06,2006, EVEN AT THAT TIME THE GROUN D RELATING TO THE TATA SONS LIMITED 6 JURISDICTION WAS NOT TAKEN UP. THE ADDITIONAL GROU ND WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 17.11.2016. THERE WAS A DELAY OF TEN A ND A HALF YEARS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO GIVE A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DELAY CAN BE DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS FIRST PART BE TWEEN 1.06.2006 TO 21.09.2015, WHEN THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL D ECIDED THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD. THE APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED DURING THIS TIME. FORTUITOUSLY, THE APPEAL DID NOT COME UP FOR HEARIN G AND ASSESSEE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF APPEAL. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALL ALONG SATISFIED THAT THE ADDITIONA L COMMISSIONER WAS HAVING VALID JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2001-02, ESPECIALLY PARA 3.17, WHERE THE TRIBUNAL H AS REFERRED TO VARIOUS DECISIONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE DECISIONS W ERE GIVEN MUCH PRIOR TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD. YET THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE WAS CONCERNED, IT HAD ACCEPTED THE POSITION THAT THE AD DITIONAL COMMISSIONER HAD VALID JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT. THE NAT URAL INFERENCE WILL BE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE AP PEAL WAS TO BE DECIDED ONLY ON MERITS. THE POSITION WAS SETTLED THEREFORE , THE SUDDEN CHANGE OF SITUATION WAS UNCALLED FOR AFTER A LONG DELAY. TATA SONS LIMITED 7 4. THE SECOND PART OF THE PERIOD WAS BETWEEN 31.09. 2015, WHEN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD., WAS RENDERED BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND THE DATE OF FILING THE A DDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL I.E. 17.11.2016. THUS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS DELAY. THE SAME GROUP REPRESENTED BY THE SAME COUNSEL HAD FILED SAME ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND IN THE CASE OF TATA COMMUNICATION LTD. FOR A.Y. 2002-03 ON 15.01.2016 AND 29.12.2015 RESPECTIVELY. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS AGI TATED SIMILAR ISSUE ON 29.12.2015, THERE WAS NO REASON TO FILE THE ADDITIO NAL GROUND IN THE IMPUGNED CASE ON 17.11.2016. THUS, THE DELAY OF AB OUT ELEVEN MONTHS IN FILING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINE D EVEN WHEN POINTED OUT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE ORDINARY ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARISING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THIS WAS A DIFFERENT GROUND ALTOGETHER WHEN THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BEING CHALLENGE D ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER TWELVE YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE JURISDICT ION. THE DR FURTHER STATED THAT SUCH A CHANGE OF STAND AND LONG DELAY IN FILI NG THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS NEEDS TO BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED ELSE THE ADDIT IONAL GROUNDS SHOULD BE REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTE NTION, THE LEARNED DR CITEED THE COMMENTARIES FROM BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY ESTO PPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE : TATA SONS LIMITED 8 ESTOPPELS ARISING FROM A PARTYS FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A CLAIM WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE OF THE CLAIM , THEREBY GIVING RISE TO PRESUMPTION OF ACCEPTANCE; ESTOPPEL BY LACHES: AN E QUITABLE DOCTRINE BY WHICH SOME COURTS DENY RELIEF TO A CLAIMANT WHO HAS UNREASONABLE DELAYED OR BEEN NEGLIGENT IN ASSERTING A CLAIM ETC. IN THIS R EGARD, HE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BHATINDA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. (2007) 11 SCC 363 STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PATEL RAGHAV NATHA AND OTHERS AIR 1960 SCC 1297 SANTOSHKUMAR SHIVGONDA PATIL & ORS VS. BALASAHEB TU KARAM SHEVALE & ANR. (2009) 9 SCC 352 CIT VS. NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (2008) 3 05 ITR 137 (DEL) CIT VS. HUTCHISON TELECOM LTD. (2010) 323 ITR 320 ( DEL) THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT IF NO TIME LIMIT IS PRESCRIBED FOR FILING ADDITIONAL GROUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT CAN BE FILED AFTER ANY LAPSE OF TIME IN A RECKLESS MANNER. EVEN WHEN NO T IME LIMIT IS PROVIDED FOR FILING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, THEY SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. THE NORMAL PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL IS 60 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ADDITI ONAL GROUNDS SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME THEREAFTER ESPECIALL Y IN A CASE LIKE THIS, WHERE IT IS NOT AN ORDINARY GROUND OF APPEAL ARISIN G FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT A GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALI DITY OF THE JURISDICTION TATA SONS LIMITED 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH WAS NOT RAISED BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUCH A GROUND SEEKS TO UNSETTLE A SETTLED POSIT ION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND WILL HAVE A BEARING ON O THER ASSESSEES ALSO AS THE ASSESSMENTS FOR OTHER YEARS AND OTHER ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED ON THE VALIDITY OF THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE VALIDITY OF THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE JURISDICTION WAS NOT QUESTI ONED AND IF THE ENTIRE ORDER IS QUASHED AFTER SUCH A LONG TIME WITHOUT DEC IDING THE MERITS OF THE CASE, UNUSUAL HEAVY FINANCIAL BURDEN MAY BE PUT ON THE REVENUE TO REFUND THE TAXES PAID. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME, EVIDENCES WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST AS RECORDS WOU LD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY WEEDING OUT OR LOST/MISPLACED WITH CHA NGES OF JURISDICTION OR OTHERWISE. KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PO SITION OF LAW OR FACTS, AS THE BASIS OF THE NEW CLAIM HERE, IS IRRELEVANT. ULTIMATELY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO THESE REASONS THERE SHOULD BE FINALITY OF MATTERS AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE BARRED FROM RAISING NEW ISSUES AFTER INORDINATE DELAY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DO CTRINE OF LACHES SHOULD BE INVOKED FOR UNREASONABLE DELAY IN ASSERTING THE CLAIM AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. IT WAS A LSO SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD FIRST ADJUDICATE THE IS SUE REGARDING THE DELAY IN FILING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. APART FROM THE DELAY , IT WAS URGED THAT SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL OF A DIFFERENT BENCH, THE TATA SONS LIMITED 10 IT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD FILE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN AN ABRU PT MANNER. 5. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GRO UND OF THE ASSESSEE IS RAISED ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS. MEGA CORPORATION LTD. , BUT THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN REVERSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT V IDE ITS ORDER DATED 23.02.2017 IN ITA NO. 128/2016. SINCE, THE DECISIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD., ON THE BASIS OF WHIC H THE ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN, NO MORE SURVIVE, THE ADDITIONAL GRO UND SHOULD BE REJECTED. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS THE DECI SION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD., AND THE QUESTION INVOLVED THEREIN AND ON THAT BASIS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN THAT CASE THE HIGH HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER HAD VALID JURISDIC TION AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY HIM WAS VALID. IN THE SAID DECISION, REFER ENCE WAS MADE TO SECTION 124(3)(A) AND OBSERVED THAT THIS SECTION EN ACTS A STATUTORY BAR TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION BEYOND THE STIPU LATED PERIOD OF ONE MONTH. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT SECTION 127 HAS NO APPLICATION AND, THE PARTIERS WERE DIRECTED TO APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L FOR HEARING ON MERITS. THUS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DECISION OF DELHI H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD IS BINDING AND, THEREFORE, ADD ITIONAL GROUND SHOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED. TATA SONS LIMITED 11 6. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY PURE QUE STIONS OF LAW CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). THE QUESTION OF JURISDICT ION IS NOT A PURE QUESTION OF LAW AS IT REQUIRES INVESTIGATION INTO F ACTS PARTICULARLY IN AN OLD CASE LIKE THIS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISS UE REGARDING THE JURISDICTION IS NOT APPEALABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL U/S. 253 OF THE ACT. ULTIMATELY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURISDICTION AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS TH EREFORE, HE IS DEBARRED TO TAKE THIS ISSUE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. EV EN FROM THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, IT IS NOT CLEAR AT WHAT TIME THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WAS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH HIS JURISDICTION. REFERRING TO SECTION 114(C) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT JUDICIAL AND OFFICIAL ACTS HAVE BEEN REGULARLY PERFORMED. THUS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN CASE THIS TRIBUNAL ADMITS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, ADDITIONAL GORUND SHOULD NOT BE HEARD ON MERITS AND THE ISSUE SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR CONSIDERATION AS DECIDED BY T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA). 7. THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED HEREIN GO TO THE VERY ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THE DEAL WITH THE VERY JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE TATA SONS LIMITED 12 ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TH EREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE GROUNDS CAN BE ADMITTED IN THE INTERESTS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE RAISED IN A BONA FIDE MANNER WITHOUT INDULGING IN DELAY TACTICS. RELIANCE WAS P LACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] CIT VS. S. NELLIAPPAN [66 ITR 722 (SC)] AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT [199 ITR 351 (BOM)] CIT VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS [349 ITR 336 (BOM)] ASHOK VARDHAN BIRLA VS. CIT [208 ITR 958 (BOM)] INAROO VS. CIT [204 ITR 312 (BOM)] CIT VS. GOVINDRAM BROS. P. LTD. [141 ITR 626 (BOM)] THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN REBUTTAL O F THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEANED DR THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY, SUBMITTED THAT UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, THE LIMITATION IS PROVIDED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING OF APPEA L AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS CAN BE FILED THEREAFTER AT ANY TIME. HE PLACED HIS REL IANCE ON DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHILPA ASSOCIAT ES VS. ITO (263 ITR 317), MADAD ALL VS. DCIT (272 ITR 560) AND ZAKIR HUSSAIN VS. CIT (202 CTR 40). 8. FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO THE RELIANCE OF THE LEAR NED DR ON THE DECISIONS OF STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BHATINDA DISTRICT CO-OPERATI VE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PATEL RAGHAV NATHA AND OT HERS, SANTOSH KUMAR TATA SONS LIMITED 13 SHIVGONDA PATIL & ORS VS. BALASAHEB TUKARAM SHEVALE & ANR., CIT VS. NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, CIT VS. HUTCHISON T ELECOM LTD. (SUPRA), THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CAS ES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ON THE SUBMISSION O F THE DR THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED BY THE TRI BUNAL AT THIS STAGE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA), THE SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE P OINTED OUT THAT IN THIS CASE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WERE NOT ADMITTED IN VIEW OF SECTION 124(3), WHEREIN OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER CAN BE RAISED ONLY WITHIN A TIME STIPULATED THEREIN. SECTION 124 IS RELEVANT ONLY TO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AND NOT WHERE INHERENT JURISDICTION IS CHALLENGED. TO SUPPORT T HIS CONTENTION HE RELIED ON THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMESH D. PATEL (362 ITR 492) WHEREIN COURT HELD THAT 'THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 124 CLEARLY CONCERN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO INHERENT JURISDICTION FOR PASSING AN A SSESSMENT ORDER.' FURTHER, THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS ITS OWN EARLIER DECISIONS, ALSO DRAWN A DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION' AND 'INHERENT JU RISDICTION' IN TWO CASES VIZ. CIT VS. S.S. AHLUWALIA [2014] 88 CCH 158 AND K.K. L OOMBA (241 ITR 152). THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS CONCLUDED THAT SEC TION 124 HAS RELEVANCE TO 'TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION' ALONE. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT VIEW SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE IS ALSO REITERATED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COUR T IN PRASHANT CHANDRA VS. CIT [2017] 81 TAXMANN.COM 106, WHICH FORMS PART OF THE PAPER-BOOK II AND TATA SONS LIMITED 14 BY THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN ELITE PHARMACEUTICALS VS. ITO (242 TAXMAN 345) (FLAP NO.6 OF PAPER BOOK II) WHEREIN THE PROPO SITION THAT SECTION 124 IS CONFINED ONLY TO 'TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION' WAS HIG HLIGHTED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED THE ABOVE DEPARTMENTAL SUBMISSION IN THE CASE OF COMPUTER ENG INEERING VS. ACIT (68 TAXMANN.COM 426) (FLAP NO.6 OF PAPER BOOK II) AND L AIRY DISTRIBUTORS VS. DCIT (FLAP NO.7 OF PAPER BOOK II) HAVING FOLLOWED T HE ABOVE TWO DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CASES, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT A CHALLENGE TO THE 'INHERENT JURISDICTION' OF THE ADDITIONAL CIT TO PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE R AISED AT ANY STAGE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THAT LIMITATION CONTAINED IN SECTION 124 IS NOT RELEVANT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT CHALLENGE TO THE 'INHERENT JURISDICTION' CAN BE RAI SED AT ANY BELATED STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING IN APPEAL OR EXECUTION IN THE FOLLOWING TWO CASES: I) KANWAR SINGH SAINI VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2012) 4 SCC 307. II) KIRAN SINGH V/S. CHAMAN - AIR 1954 S.C. 340 IN ANY EVENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT MAJORITY OF THE DECI SIONS HAVE TAKEN A VIEW WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DELHI HI GH COURT AND, THEREFORE, IF THERE ARE TWO VIEWS, THE VIEW WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY APPLYING THE FOLLOWING BINDING JUDGMENT S IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TATA SONS LIMITED 15 VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. - 88 ITR 192 (SC); ITO VS. SIEMENS INDIA LTD. & ANR. -156 ITR 11 (SC) AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13 .07.2016 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HINDUSTAN THOMPSON IN ITA NO.6729/MUM/2014 FOR A.Y. 2010-11. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEANRED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD. IS PER INCURIUM BECAUSE IT HAS IGNORED TWO BIN DING DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CASES OF S.S. AHLUWALIA AND K.K. LOOMBA AND, THEREFORE, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MEGA IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION THAT A DECISION WHICH IS PER INCURIUM NEED NOT BE FOLLOWED: ( I) A.R. ANTULAY VS. R.S. NAYAK - (1988) 2 SCC 602 . (II) UOI VS. S.K. KAPOOR (2011) 4 SCC 589. (III) UOI VS. RAGHUBIR SINGH (1989) 2 SCC 754. (IV) UOI VS. R.P. SINGH (2014) 7 SCC 340. ( V) ST. OF ASSAM VS. RIPA SARMA (2013) 3 SCC 63. (VI) OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR VS. DAYANAND (2008) 10 SCC 1. (VII) SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPA MHETRE VS. ST. OF MAHARA SHTRA (2011) 1 SCC 694. 10. THE DEPARTMENT HAS SUPPORTED THE ABOVE ARGUMENT S ON THE BASIS OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . BRITISH INDIA (337 ITR 64) AND CONTENDED THAT A PLEA OF WANT OF JURISDICTI ON COULD NOT BE RAISED BEYOND TIME STIPULATED IN SECTION 124. IN REBUTTAL OF THE DRS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRITISH INDIA (SUPRA), THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THIS CASE IS NOT TATA SONS LIMITED 16 APPLICABLE BECAUSE IT IS CONFINED TO CHALLENGE THE 'TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION' AND NOT 'INHERENT JURISDICTION'. FURTHER, AS NOTED IN T HIS VERY JUDGMENT, APPLYING THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KIRAN SIN GH (AIR 1954 SC 340) IT IS CLEAR THAT WHERE THERE IS A CHALLENGE TO THE 'IN HERENT JURISDICTION', THE CONCEPT OF 'PREJUDICE' IS NOT RELEVANT. 11. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DRS RELIANCE ON THE SUPR EME COURT JUDGMENTS IN THE CASE OF KIRAN SINGH VS. CHAMAN PASWAN (A.I.R. 1 954 S.C. 340), RAFIQUE BIBI VS. SAYED WALIUDDIN [(2004) 1 SUPREME COURT CA SES 287] AND DEEPAK AGRO FOODS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE SUPREME COURT DECI SIONS SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT. IN FACT, THE FIRST DECISION IN T HE CASE OF KIRAN SINGH NOTICES THE FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'TERRIT ORIAL JURISDICTION' ON THE ONE HAND AND 'SUBJECT MATTER OR INHERENT JURISDICTI ON' ON THE OTHER HAND. IN PARAGRAPH 6 OF ITS JUDGMENT, THE APEX COURT HAS OBS ERVED AS FOLLOWS: 'IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT A DECREE PASSED BY A COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS A NULLITY, AND THAT ITS INV ALIDITY COULD BE SET UP WHENEVER AND WHEREVER IT IS SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED O R RELIED UPON, EVEN AT THE STAGE OF EXECUTION AND EVEN IN COLLATER AL PROCEEDINGS. A DEFECT OF JURISDICTION, WHETHER IT IS PECUNIARY OR TERRITORIAL, OR WHETHER IT IS IN RESPECT OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF T HE ACTION, STRIKES AT THE VERY AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO PASS ANY DECR EE, AND SUCH A DEFECT CANNOT BE CURED EVEN BY CONSENT OF PARTIES.' SIMILARLY, IN THE SECOND CASE OF RAFIQUE BIBI, THE DECISION IS DELIVERED KEEPING IN MIND THE AFORESAID DISTINCTION BASED ON 'INHERENT JURISDICTION.' TATA SONS LIMITED 17 FURTHER IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK AGRO FOODS, SIMILAR V IEW IS TAKEN IN AS MUCH AS IN PARAGRAPH 15 IT IS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'WHERE AN AUTHORITY MAKING ORDER LACKS INHERENT JUR ISDICTION, SUCH ORDER WOULD BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION, NULL, NON EST AND VOID AB INITIO AS DEFECT OF JURISDICTION OF AN AUTHORITY GOES TO T HE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND STRIKES AT ITS VERY AUTHORITY TO PASS AN Y ORDER AND SUCH A DEFECT CANNOT BE CURED EVEN BY CONSENT OF THE PARTI ES. (SEE: KIRAN SINGH & ORS. VS. CHAMAN PASWAN & ORS.).' THUS, HE CONTENDED THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE THREE SUP REME COURT DECISIONS SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT. ON T HE CONTRARY, THE DECISIONS HIGHLIGHT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'INHERENT JURISDI CTION' ON THE ONE HAND AND 'TERRITORIAL OR PECUNIARY JURISDICTION' ON THE OTHE R AND HOLD THAT THE CHALLENGE TO 'INHERENT JURISDICTION' CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STA GE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. SIMILARLY, HE CONTENDED THAT IN THE CASE OF B INDAL APPARELS (SUPRA), RELIED UPON THE ABOVE DECISION IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT SECT ION 2 (7A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. IT MAY BE O BSERVED THAT THIS HAS BEEN DONE UPON CONCESSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THER E IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AS REGARDS THE IMPLICATIONS OR THE IMPACT OF THE RE TROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT. IN REBUTTAL, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BOMBAY BENCHES IN THE CASES OF TATA SONS LIMITED AND TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RETROSPECTIVE A MENDMENT OF SECTION 2 (7A). IN THE CASE OF TATA SONS LIMITED, THE RETROSP ECTIVE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN NOTICED IN PARAGRAPHS 3.24, 3.25 AND 3.26. SIM ILARLY, IN THE CASE OF TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2 (7A) HAS TATA SONS LIMITED 18 BEEN NOTICED ON PAGES 8,14,16,18,19 TO 23. BOTH THE BENCHES HAVE EXAMINED THIS AMENDMENT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS AND IMPACT AND CONCLUDED THAT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ADDITIONAL CIT COULD NOT PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFF ICER IN SPITE OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT. FURTHER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IT IS W ELL SETTLED THAT A DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IS NOT BINDING ON BOMBAY TRIBUNAL BENCHES AND IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISI ONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE FOLLOWING THREE CASES: A) CIT VS. THANA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LTD. - 206 ITR 727 (BOM). B) GEOFFREY MANNERS VS. CIT - 221 ITR 695 (BOM). C) CONSOLIDATED PNEUMATIC TOOL VS. CIT - 209 ITR 27 7 (BOM). SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. AVON CYCLES LTD. (86 ITD 156) BY A PPLYING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TH ANE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LTD. 12. WE HAVE TO FIRST DECIDE THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE AD DITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDI CTION OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHO HAS PASSED THE IMPU GNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS THE AUTHORITY OF LAW TO ACT AS A ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND TO PASS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE HAVE EXAMINED THIS I SSUE. WE NOTED THAT SIMILAR ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE THIS TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE TATA SONS LIMITED 19 ASSESSEE FOR AY 2001-02 AND D BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN ITA NO. 4497 & 4542/MUM/2005, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.10.2016ADMIT TED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 3.12. WE HAVE EXAMINED THIS ISSUE. IT IS WELL ACCE PTED POSITION THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS A FINAL FACT FINDING BODY. REQ UISITE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR ESTABLISHING LEGAL AUTHORITY OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER WHO HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. THUS, THE LEGAL ISSUE RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF CASES WHICH CAN B E DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL HELD ON RECORD. 3.13. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED BY US THAT THE AFORESAID GROUNDS ARE PURELY LEGAL GROUNDS AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTI GATION OF FRESH FACTS AND CAN BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF RECORDS HE LD ON RECORD. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION 229 ITR 383 AS WELL AS IN THE OTHER JUDGMENTS AS HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNS EL IN ITS PETITION THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO RAISE LEGAL GROUNDS AT ANY STAGE, IF THEY GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. 3.14. REVENUES ARGUMENT TO REJECT THE ADDITIONAL G ROUNDS DUE TO ACQUIESCENCE AND PARTICIPATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS: IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. CIT-DR THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAD MADE PARTICIPA TION IN THE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT TH IS STAGE. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT VERY CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED BEFORE US AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICER TO PASS THE IMPU GNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS BOUNDEN DUTY OF THE REVENUE TO ESTABLI SH THE AUTHORITY AND LEGAL COMPETENCE OF ITS OFFICER TO PASS THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, AS AND WHEN IT IS CALLED UPON TO DO SO. NO ORDER CAN B E SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW IF ITS AUTHOR DOES NOT HAVE REQUISI TE SANCTION OF THE LAW. IF AN ORDER DOES NOT POSSESS REQUISITE STRENGT H IN THE EYES OF LAW AND IS VOID AB-INITIO, THEN IT WILL REMAIN SO E VEN IF THERE IS ACQUIESCENCE OR PARTICIPATION BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT BY THE AO TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT CONSENT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CON FER JURISDICTION TO AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO LACKED JURISDICTION UND ER THE LAW. TATA SONS LIMITED 20 SIMILARLY, VICE VERSA IS ALSO TRUE I.E. ABSENCE OF CONSENT OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT TAKE AWAY JURISDICTION FROM AN A SSESSING OFFICER WHO ACTUALLY POSSESSED A VALID JURISDICTION IN THE EYES OF LAW. THUS, LEGAL COMPETENCE OF THE OFFICER WHO PASSED THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MUST BE EXAMINED ON THE BASIS OF FACTUAL ANALYSIS AND PROVISIONS OF LAW AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE IS NOT RES-INTEGRA. IMMEDIATE REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD CAN BE MADE ON T HE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INVENTO RS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CIT 19 4 ITR 548 (BOMBAY). SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P.V. DOSHI VS. CIT 113 ITR 22 (GUJ) . RECENTLY HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT HANDLED A SIMILAR SITUATION IN THE CASE OF VALVOLIN E CUMMINS LTD 307 ITR 103 (DEL) WHEREIN CHALLENGE WAS MADE TO THE JUR ISDICTION OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHO HAD PASSE D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT CHALLENGE OF JURISDICTION MUST BE MADE WITHIN THE S TIPULATED TIME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN VIEW OF RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 124 OF THE ACT. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE HELD AS UNDER:- THIS IS WELL SETTLED THAT MERE ACQUIESCENCE IN THE EXERCISE OF POWERS BY A PERSON WHO DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTIO N TO EXERCISE THAT POWER CANNOT WORK AS AN ESTOPPEL AGAI NST HIM. 3.15. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY US THAT IN THE CASE BE FORE US, A CHALLENGE HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT THE LEGAL COMPETENCE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND HIS JURIS DICTION TO EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO CARRY OUT THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS AND FRAME THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. TTHUS, RELIANCE UPON THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 124 OF THE ACT WOULD BE OF NO HELP TO THE REVENUE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLEN GED EITHER TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OR IRREGULAR EXERCISE OF J URISDICTION BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUT CHALLENGE WAS MADE TO THE AUTHORITY AND LEGAL COMPETENCE ITSELF OF THE AD DITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO PASS THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT ORDER UPON THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKE N BY THE DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD V S. ADDITIONAL CIT 155 ITD 1019 (DELHI) FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VALVOLINES CUMMINS LTD, S UPRA. TATA SONS LIMITED 21 3.16 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, OF THI S CASE AND THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL IN ITS PETITIO N AS MENTIONED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DESERV E TO BE ADMITTED AND THEREFORE, THESE ARE ADMITTED FOR OUR ADJUDICATION. 13. WE ALSO NOTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ARISEN BEF ORE THE F BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TATA COMMUNICATION LTD. IN ITA NO. 6981 & 7071/MUM/2005 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND THE TRIBUNAL VID E ITS ORDER DATED 30.06.2017, WHILE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE HELD AS U NDER : 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ADDITIONAL GRO UNDS PRIMARILY PERTAIN TO THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OF ADDL. CIT TO ACT AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, IN THIS CONTEXT, FACTS/ MATERIAL WHICH REQUIRE EXAMINATION ARE THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUE D UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER AN D THE RELEVANT NOTIFICATIONS CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON THE DCIT /ADDL CIT TO ACT AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) ARE ALREADY PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND THE NOTIFICATIONS CONFERRING POWER ON THE CONCERNED OFFICER TO ACT AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PART OF THE DEPARTMENTS RECORD THEY DO NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION INTO FRESH FACTS. IN ANY CASE OF THE MATTER, THE I SSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ADDITIONAL/SUPPLEMENTARY ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE PURELY LEGAL AND JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES GOING TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AS IT AFFECTS THE VERY JURISDICTION OF THE ADDL. CI T IN PROCEEDING WITH THE ASSESSMENT AND COMPLETING IT. THAT BEING THE C ASE, ASSESSEE CAN RAISE SUCH ISSUE AT ANY STAGE. MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THAT WILL NOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SACROSANCT, IF THE ASSESSEE CAN OT HERWISE PROVE THAT THE OFFICER COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAD NO AUTHORITY/JURISDICTION TO DO SO. THEREFORE, FOLLOW ING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED SR . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE INCLINED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL/S UPPLEMENTARY TATA SONS LIMITED 22 GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WILL PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME AT THE VERY OUTSET. BOTH THESE DECISIONS INVOLVE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND, I N OUR VIEW, ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. THE PRINCIPLE OF J UDICIAL DISCIPLINE DEMANDS THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL BEFORE US ADVANCED LENGTHY AND EXH AUSTIVE ARGUMENTS THAT THIS TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUN D AS THE SAME HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SUBSTANT IAL TIME. IN THIS REGARD HE TOOK AROUND AN HOUR AND WENT ON ARGUING THE LEGAL P RINCIPLE RELATING TO THE ESTOPPELS BY LACHES AND ALSO THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RIGHT TO TAKE OR CH ALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TAKING ADDITIONAL GROUND A FTER THE EXPIRY OF SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD I.E. MORE THAN TWELVE YEARS. WE ARE SURPRISED TO SEE SUCH TYPE OF ARGUMENTS FROM THE SIDE OF THE STANDING COU NSEL. THE STANDING COUNSEL MUST BE AWARE THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE T HE TRIBUNAL HAS TO CONDONE THE DELAY FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL. CONDON ATION OF DELAY IS REQUIRED IN CASE THE APPEAL IS NOT FILED WITHIN THE PERMISSI BLE TIME. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND. IT CAN BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY TIME AND EVEN FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THIS IS A SETTLED LAW. EVEN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD V. CIT (229 ITR 383) HAS HELD AS UNDER: TATA SONS LIMITED 23 THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT BE PREVENTED FROM CONSIDERI NG QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISING IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED EARLIER. THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS CONFINED ONL Y TO ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS TOO NARROW A VIEW TO TAKE OF THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALL OW OR NOT TO ALLOW A NEW GROUND TO BE RAISED. BUT WHERE THE TRIBUNAL I S ONLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM FACTS WHICH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO R EASON WHY SUCH A QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION IN ORDER TO CORRECTLY ASS ESS THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. THE STANDING COUNSEL FROM THE DEPARTMENT EXPECTS TH IS TRIBUNAL THAT IT SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT . THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IS BINDING UNDER ARTICLE 141 UPON ALL JUDICIAL FORUMS. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS ARGUMENT OF THE STANDING CO UNSEL. 14. THE STANDING COUNSEL HAS ALSO RAISED AN ARGUMEN T THAT THIS TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE AS THE REVENUE HAS GONE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE US COPY OF TH E QUESTIONS OF LAW AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. BUT WHEN WE ASKED WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN ADMITTED O R NOT, HE DID NOT SAY THAT IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED RATHER, CONTENDED THAT SINCE T HE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, THIS TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT ADM IT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND DECIDE THE SAID ISSUE. ON OUR QUESTIONING HE F URTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS NOT STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2001- 02 AND IN THE CASE OF TATA TATA SONS LIMITED 24 COMMUNICATIONS LTD. FOR A.Y. 2002-03. WHEN THE HEA RING CONTINUED FROM 10 TH OCT 2017 TO 11 TH OCT 2017 AND ULTIMATELY IT WAS CONCLUDED ON 12 TH OCT., 2017, THE STANDING COUNSEL TRIED TO SEEK ADJOURNMEN T ON THE BASIS THAT REVENUE HAS SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR REFERRING THE ISSUE TO THE SPECIAL BENCH. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT SUBMIT BEFORE US ANY AP PLICATION BEING MOVED FOR CONSTITUTION SPECIAL BENCH. SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE HEARING CONCLUDED, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPLICATION, DATED 20.10.2017, FOR CONSTITUTION OF SPECIAL BENCH ON 24.10.2017 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2002-03. IN OUR VIEW, THE SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL TRIED THAT THE CA SE SHOULD NOT BE DISPOSED OFF AND BE KEPT IN ABEYANCE ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE O THER EVEN THOUGH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE HAS TAKEN THREE DAYS THE BENC H COULD NOT DEVOTE TIME TO OTHER CASES. THE STANDING COUNSEL MUST BE AWARE OF THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IS BOUND BY JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND UNTIL AND UNLESS T HERE IS CONTRARY DECISION ON THE SAME ISSUE OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, THE DECISI ON OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IS BINDING ON US. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THI S TRIBUNAL IS FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH. AFTER THE CONCLUSIO N OF THE HEARING, IN OUR OPINION THE PRAYER FOR SPECIAL BENCH MADE BY THE RE VENUE BY APPLICATION FILED ON 24.10.2017 DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEG TO STAND. EVEN THIS BENCH DOES NOT HAVE ANY DIRECTION FROM THE HONBLE PRESIDENT I N THIS REGARD, TO WHOM THE APPLICATION WAS MOVED BY THE REVENUE. WE NOTED THA T THE ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL HAS ALREADY BEEN DE ALT WITH BY THIS TRIBUNAL TATA SONS LIMITED 25 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND IN THE CASE OF TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD FOR A.Y. 2002-03, WHICH ARE BIND ING ON US. 15. THE STANDING COUNSEL BEFORE US ALSO TRIED TO DI STINGUISH THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THAT OF THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA). BUT THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN REVERSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT VIDE ITS O RDER DATED 23.02.2017. THEREFORE THE DECISION OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD. DOES NOT HAVE ANY BASIS FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE AD DITIONAL GROUND. IN THIS REGARD, WE MAY SUBMIT THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL IS WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER, WHO PASSED THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT ORDER, HAD VALID JURISDICTION OR NOT WHILE MAKING THE APPLICAT ION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. NO DOUBT THERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS. MEGA C ORPORATION, BUT RELYING ON A PARTICULAR DECISION DOES NOT MEAN THAT HIS ADDITI ONAL GROUND BE DECIDED BY US. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF DELHI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA) AND NOTED THAT VARIOU S HIGH COURTS HAVE TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW ON THIS ISSUE, AS UNDER: CIT VS. RAMESH D PATEL [362 ITR 493] (GUJ) PRASHANT CHANDRA VS. CIT 81 TAXMANN.COM 106 (ALLAHA BAD) ELITE PHARMACEUTICALS VS. ITO[242 TAXMAN 345] (CAL) TATA SONS LIMITED 26 NOW IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN D ECIDED ONLY BY DELHI HIGH COURT. DELHI HIGH COURT IS NOT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. WHEN THERE IS A CONTRARY DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IS NOT BINDING ON US. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THANE E LECTRICITY SUPPLY LTD (206 ITR 727), WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES FOR THE PRECEDENTS: THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WITH REGARD TO PRECEDENTS A RE: (A) THE LAW DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT BEING BIN DING ON ALL COURTS IN INDIA, THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE BINDING ON ALL COURTS, EXCEPT, HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT ITSE LF WHICH IS FREE TO REVIEW THE SAME AND DEPART FROM ITS EARLIER OPIN ION IF THE SITUATION SO WARRANTS. WHAT IS BINDING IS, OF COURS E, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION AND NOT EVERY EXPRESSION FOUND THEREIN. (B) THE DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT ARE BINDING ON THE SUBORDINATE COURTS AND AUTHORITIES OR TRIBUNALS UNDER ITS SUPER INTENDENCE THROUGHOUT THE TERRITORIES IN RELATION TO WHICH IT EXERCISES JURISDICTION. IT DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND ITS TERRITO RIAL JURISDICTION. (C) THE POSITION IN REGARD TO THE BINDING NATURE OF THE DECISIONS OF A HIGH COURT ON DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE SAME COURT, MAY BE SUMMED UP AS FOLLOWS: (I) A SINGLE JUDGE OF A HIGH COURT IS BOUND BY THE DECISION OF ANOTHER SINGLE JUDGE OR A DIVISION BENCH OF THE SAM E HIGH COURT. IT WOULD BE JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETY TO IGNORE T HAT DECISION. JUDICIAL COMITY DEMANDS THAT A BINDING DE CISION TO WHICH HIS ATTENTION HAD BEEN DRAWN SHOULD NEITHER B E IGNORED NOR OVERLOOKED. (II) A DIVISION BENCH OF A HIGH COURT SHOULD FOLLOW THE DECISION OF ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH OF EQUAL STRENGT H OR A FULL BENCH OF THE SAME HIGH COURT. IF ONE DIVISION BENCH TATA SONS LIMITED 27 DIFFERS FROM ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH OF THE SAME HIG H COURT, IT SHOULD REFER THE CASE TO A LARGER BENCH. (III) WHERE THERE ARE CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF COUR TS OF CO- ORDINATE JURISDICTION, THE LATER DECISION IS TO BE PREFERRED IF REACHED AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE EARLIER DEC ISIONS. (D) THE DECISION OF ONE HIGH COURT IS NEITHER BINDI NG PRECEDENT FOR ANOTHER HIGH COURT NOR FOR COURTS OR TRIBUNALS OUTS IDE ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. THUS, IN THIS DECISION THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS CA TEGORICALLY LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT DECISION OF ONE HIGH COURT IS NEITHER BINDING PRECEDENT FOR ANOTHER HIGH COURT NOR FOR COURTS OR TRIBUNALS OUTSIDE ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, AS HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL IS NOT BINDING ON THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT BOUND TO REFER THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL FOR CONSTITUTION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH. 16. WE ALSO NOTED THAT THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF RAMESH D PATEL (SUPRA), WHILE DEALING WITH A SIMILAR ISSUE, WE NOTED THAT AT PAGE 496 UNDER LAST BUT ONE PARAGRAPH HELD AS UNDER: 9. THUS, SECTION 124 OF THE ACT PERTAINS TO THE TER RITORIAL JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER VESTED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1 ) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120. AN OBJECTION TO SUCH JURISDICTI ON CAN BE RAISED IN TERMS OF SECTION 124(2). IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (3 ) OF SECTION 124, RIGHT TO RAISE SUCH OBJECTION SHALL BE FOREGONE BEY OND THE STAGES MENTIONED THEREIN. THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE CLEARLY CONCERNING WITH THE DISPUTE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE TER RITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS NO RELEVANCE IN SO FAR AS THE INHERENT JURISDICTION FOR PASSING AN ORDER OF ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, WHEN NO SEARC H AUTHORISATION TATA SONS LIMITED 28 UNDER SECTION 132 WAS ISSUED OR REQUISITION UNDER S ECTION 132A OF THE ACT WAS MADE. SIMILARLY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRASAD CHANDRA VS. CIT (SUPRA) IN PARA NO.22 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD AS UND ER: 22. AS REGARDS THE QUESTION OF DETERMINING THE JUR ISDICTION, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT IN MOTI AND JAWAHAR (SUPRA), WHI CH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE PETITIONER, THE COURT OBSERVED T HAT A POINT WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATER AND WHICH AFFECTS THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE JURISDICTION OF AN AUTHORITY CAN BE RAISED A T ANY TIME, BE IT IN APPEAL OR REVISION. FURTHER, WE ALSO NOTED THAT THE WHILE DEALING WITH SIMILAR ISSUE, THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ELITE PHARMACEUT ICALS VS. ITO (SUPRA), UNDER PARA 15 HELD AS UNDER: 15. THE ASSESSEE HAD QUESTIONED THE TERRITORIAL JU RISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LOST THE RIGHT TO RAISE THE OBJECTION BY EFFLUX OF TIME. WE, AS SUCH, FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE CASE OF THE A PPELLANT. 17. NO DOUBT, THE DELHI HIGH COURT, AS HAS BEEN HEA VILY RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT, IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA), HAS TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW BUT THAT DECISION DOES NOT HAVE A BINDING PRECEDENT ON US. THIS IS THE SETTLE D LAW, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCT LTD., (88 ITR 192), IF A COURT FIND THAT THE LANGUAGE OF A TAXING PROVI SION IS AMBIGUOUS OR CAPABLE OF MORE MEANINGS THAN ONE, THE N THE COURT HAS TO TATA SONS LIMITED 29 ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSE E, MORE PARTICULARLY SO WHERE THE PROVISION RELATES TO THE IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY . 18. NOW COMING TO THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE AS THE ADDITIONAL C IT, WHO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT HAVING THE INHERENT JURISD ICTION, WE THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO TAKE THIS GROUND FIRST. BOTH THE PART IES HAVE ELABORATELY AND EXHAUSTIVELY ARGUED ON THIS ISSUE AND HAVE ALSO MAD E WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE US. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMIS SIONS CITED BEFORE US DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THE SPECIFIC ISSUE B EFORE US, WHICH MERITS OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI, WHO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS COMPETENCE AND JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. WE NOTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ARISEN IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2001-02 IN ITA 4497 & 4542/MUM/2005 AND THE D BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.10.2016, WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE HAS HELD AS UNDER: 3.20 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT FOR, THE ASSESSMENT YE AR, AFTER THE RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, A NOTICE WAS ISSU ED BY THE ACIT CIR 2(3), MUMBAI, DATED 5TH SEPTEMBER 2001, INTIMAT ING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT CHANGE IN JURISDICTION AND CLAIMING THAT JURISDICTIONAL WAS WITH THE SAID OFFICER. THE RELEV ANT PART OF THE SAID NOTICE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 'SUB: CHANGE IN JURISDICTION-INTIMATION REGARDING IN TERMS OF NOTIFICATION NO. SO NO. 732(E) DATED 31 .7.2001 OF CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND CONSEQUENTIAL NOTIFICATION DATED 7.8.2001 OF CIT. MC-II, MUMBAI., TATA SONS LIMITED 30 JURISDICTION OVER YOUR CASE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.8.20 01 VESTS WITH THE UNDERSIGNED. ALL IT./W.T. AND INTEREST TAX RETURNS AND NECESSARY CORRESPONDENCE ON THAT ACCOUNT ARE THEREFORE REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITH THE UNDERSIGNED . ALL PAYMENTS TOWARDS INCOME-TAX (BY WAY OF ADVANCE TAX, REGULAR TAX OR S.A. TAX), INTEREST TAX, WCALTH TAX AND PAYMENT U/S. 115-0 OF THE I.T. ACT ARE ALSO TO BE M ADE W.E.F. 1.8.2001 TO THE CREDIT OF THE ACTT CIRCLE 2( 3), MUMBAI. 2. SIMILARLY, JURISDICTION OVER THE MANAGING DIRECT OR, DIRECTOR, MANAGER, AND SECRETARY OF YOUR ALSO VESTS WITH THE UNDERSIGNED VIDE NOTIFICATIONS QUOTED SUPRA. CONSEQ UENTLY, ALL THE ; OF DIE ABOVE PERSONS AND FOLLOW UP CORRESPONDENCES ON THAT ACCOUNT ARE TO BE MADE WITH THE ALL PAYMENTS TOWARDS INCOME-TAX AND WEALTH-TAX W.E. F 01.08.2001 OF THE ABOVE PERSONS ARE ALSO TO BE MADE TO THE CREDIT OF ACIT CIR.2(3) MUMBAI. THIS MAY BE CAREFUL LY NOTED. YOURSFAITHFULLY SD/- (JAGADISH PRASAD JANGID) ACIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI. 3.21 THUS, FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT INITIAL LY THE JURISDICTION WAS WITH ACIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI, FOR PASSING THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY DCI T CIR. 2(3) DATED 1.12.2003 WHO WAS INDEED SUCCESSOR TO THE F IRST OFFICER. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE RECEIVED A DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2004 FROM THE ADDITIONAL CIT RANGE 2(3) MUMBAI. APPARENT LY, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS NOT SUCCESSOR OF ACI T/DCIT WHO HAD ISSUED EARLIER NOTICE. BUT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CO NTENDED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW AS TO HOW THE AD DITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BECAME AO OF THE ASSESSE E AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3.22. THUS, THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE ASSISTANT TATA SONS LIMITED 31 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUT WERE TAKEN OVER IN T HE MIDDLE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX AND COMPLETED BY HIM WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY VALID TRAN SFER OF JURISDICTION FROM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX TO THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD. CIT- DR WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDIC TION OVER THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, CONTENTION OF LD. CIT-DR IS NOT VALID AS IT IS NOT BASED UPON CORRECT APPRECIATION OF THE LAW. IT APPEARS THAT REVENUE HAS MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISS-APPLIED THE VERY CONCEPT OF 'CONCURRENT JURISDICTION 1 AND HAS IGNORED THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 'CONCURRENT JURISDICTION' AND 'JOINT JURISDICTION'. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ASSIGNMENT OF 'CONCURRENT JURISDICTION 1 TO TWO OFFICERS OF DIFFERENT HIERARCHY, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT BOTH THE OFFICERS CAN SIMULTANEOUSLY OR JOINTLY WORK UPON THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF SAME ASSESSEE. BUT IT MEANS THAT BOTH THE OFFICERS ARE LEGALLY ELIGIBLE FOR ASSIGNMENT OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF A_ ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, ANY ONE OF THESE OFF ICERS CAN BE ASSIGNED THE JURISDICTION BY THE HIGHER AUTHORITY. BUT, EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION BETWEEN BOTH THE OFFICERS SHALL AL WAYS BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TO EACH OTHER. IF THE JURISDICTION HAS BE EN ASSIGNED TO ONE OF THE OFFICERS, IT SHALL NOT BE EXERCISED BY THE O THER, AND IF THE JURISDICTION IS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE FORMER OFFICER AND ASSIGNED TO THE LATTER, THEN IT SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THE LATTE R ONLY AND NOT BY THE FORMER. THUS, THE JURISDICTION CAN BE EXERCISED BY ONLY ONE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ANY GIVEN POINT OF TUNE WHO HA S BEEN DULY ASSIGNED THE JURISDICTION BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORIT Y. THE ASSIGNMENT OF JURISDICTION TO AN OFFICER AND ITS TR ANSFER FROM ONE OFFICER TO THE OTHER CAN BE MADE ONLY THROUGH THE P RESCRIBED PROCESS OF LAW. SECTION 127 OF THE ACT CONTAINS PRO VISIONS REGARDING PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE REVENUE OFFICERS AND THEIR POWERS FOR TRANSFER OF CASES FROM ONE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE OTHER. SECTION 127(1) INTER-ALIA PROVIDES AND MANDATES THAT THE CO MMISSIONER MAY AFTER RECORDING HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO, TRANS FER ANY CASE FROM ONE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBORDINATE TO HIM TO ANY OTH ER ASSESSING OFFICER (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDI CTION) ALSO TATA SONS LIMITED 32 SUBORDINATE TO HIM. THUS, MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW IN THIS REGARD IS THAT AN ORDER IN WRITING MUST BE PASSED B Y THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR EFFEC TING TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM ONE ASSESSING OFFICER T O THE OTHER. LAW IN THIS REGARD WAS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL BY HON'B LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VAHOLINES CUMMINS LTD. (SUPRA) . SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPN. LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMEN T OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT. RELEVANT PART OF ORDER IS REPRODUCED BE LOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: '......9. ANOTHER CONTENTION SPECIFICALLY RAISED IS THAT THERE IS NO TRANSFER ORDER U/S 127 OF THE ACT FROM TRANSFERR ING THE CASE FROM THE DCIT TO THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6, AND N EW DELHI. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT HI THE CASE S OF TRANSFER OF CASES TO ANOTHER AO AFTER ISSUE OF NOTI CE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT BY ANOTHER AO, THE ISSUE INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS APPEAL WITHIN THE RESTRICTED DIRECTIO NS OF THE HON'BLE IT AT. HE HAS HELD THAT, 'IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, SINCE BOTH ADDL. CIT RANGE-6 AND DCIT CIRCLE-6(L) W ORKS AS SUBORDINATE OFFICER TO THE SAME CIT AND THE CIT HAV ING ENTIRE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, THE PASSING OF ASS ESSMENT ORDER BY THE ADDL. CIT AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 14 3(2) BY THE DCIT CIRCLE 6(1) DOES NOT AFFECT THE TAXABILITY OF THE APPELLANT OR APPELLANT IS NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE ORDER.' THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE C ONTEXT IN THE CASE OF VALVOLINE CUMMINS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: '28. ON THE ISSUE OF 'CONCURRENT' JURISDICTION BETW EEN THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON A DECI SION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD V. ASSTT. CIT [20001 246 ITR 133. THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAD EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'CONCURRENT 1 TO MEAN TWO AUTHORITIES HAVING EQUAL POWERS TO DEAL WI TH A TATA SONS LIMITED 33 SITUATION -BUT THE SAME WORK CANNOT BE DIVIDED BETW EEN THEM. THIS IS WHAT THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAD TO S AY:- '. . . CONCURRENT JURISDICTION MEANS A SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY CAN DEAL WITH THE MATTER EQUALLY WITH ANY SUPERIOR AUTHORITY IN ITS ENTIRETY SO THAT EITHER ONE OF SUCH JURISDIC TIONS CAN BE INVOKED. IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CONCURRENT JURIS DICTION WHEN ONE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE DEALT WITH BY ONE SUPERIOR OFFICER AND THE OTHER PART WILL BE DEALT W ITH BY ONE SUBORDINATE OFFICER....' ............ IT APPEARS TO US QUITE CLEARLY THAT TH ERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONCURRENT EXERCISE OF POWER AN D JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER. WHEN POWER HAS BEEN CONFERRED UP ON TWO AUTHORITIES CONCURRENTLY, EITHER ONE OF THEM CA N EXERCISE THAT POWER AND ONCE A DECISION IS TAKEN TO EXERCISE THE POWER BY ANY ONE OF THOSE AUTHORITIES, THAT EXE RCISE MUST BE TERMINATED BY THAT AUTHORITY ONLY. IT IS NO T THAT ONE AUTHORITY CAN START EXERCISING A POWER AND THE OTHE R AUTHORITY HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CAN CONCLU DE THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER. THIS PERHAPS MAY BE PERMISS IBLE IN A SITUATION WHERE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES JOINTLY EXER CISE POWER BUT IT CERTAINLY IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WHERE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES CONCURRENTLY EXERCISE POWER. ONE EXAMPLE THAT IMMED IATELY COMES TO THE MIND IS THAT OF GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL. BOTH THE SESSIONS JUDGE AND THE HIGH COURT HAVE CONCURRE NT POWER. IT IS NOT AS IF A PART OF THAT POWER CAN BE EXERCISED BY THE HIGH COURT AND THE BALANCE POWER CAN BE EXER CISED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE. IF THE HIGH COURT IS SEIZED OF AN APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IT MUST DEAL WITH IT AND SIMILARLY IF THE SESSIONS JUDGE IS SEIZED OF AN ANT ICIPATORY BAIL, HE MUST DEAL WITH IT. THERE CAN BE NO JOINT E XERCISE OF POWER BOTH BY THE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS BY THE SESS IONS JUDGE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME APPLICATION FOR ANTICI PATORY BAIL. 30. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE ADD ITIONAL COMMISSIONER HAD EXERCISED THE POWER OF AN ASSESSIN G OFFICER, HE WAS REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO EXERCISE TH AT POWER TATA SONS LIMITED 34 TILL HIS JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER WAS OVER. HIS J URISDICTION IN THE MATTER WAS NOT OVER MERELY ON THE PASSING OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT IT CONTINUED IN TERMS OF SECTI ON 220(6) OF THE ACT IN DEALING WITH THE PETITION FOR STAY. W HAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT AFTER HAVING P ASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER S EEMS TO HAVE WASHED HIS HANDS OF THE MATTER AND LEFT IT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO DECIDE THE STAY PETITION FIL ED UNDER SECTION 220(6) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT THIS WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW.' 9.1 WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT APPLYING THE ABOVE JUDIC IAL POSITION THAT ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE AUTHORITY WHO HAS INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR MAK ING ASSESSMENT-AND ANY OTHER AUTHORITY CAN TAKE OVER TH E PROCEEDINGS ONLY AFTER A PROPER ORDER OF TRANSFER U /S 127(1) OR 127(2) OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THE REVENUE HAS NOT B ROUGHT ANY ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF THE PROCEEDINGS FROM DCIT , CIRCLE- 6(L), NEW DELHI TO THE ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE- 6, NE W DELHI AND THEREFORE IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE ADDITION AL CIT, RANGE-6 TOOK OVER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOU T THERE BEING AN ORDER U/S 127(1). IN THE CASE OFPRAC HI LEATHERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UND ER: 19. WE ARE FURTHER OF THE OPINION THAT THE NOTICE U NDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN ISSUED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, RANGE 6(2), KANPUR ON 16.8.2002 , IT WAS INCOME-TAX OFFICER ALONE WHO COULD FRAME THE ASSESSMENT SUBJECT HOWEVER TO THE FACT THAT THAT TH E ASSESSMENT COULD BE FRAMED BY ANY OTHER OFFICER ALS O PROVIDED THERE WAS AN ORDER OF TRANSFER OF JURISDIC TION OVER ASSESSEE'S CASE FROM INCOME-TAX OFFICER, RANGE-6(2) , KANPUR TO THAT OFFICER UNDER SECTION 127(4) OF THE ACT, BUT SO FAR AS PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, THE REVENUE HA S NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY ORDER UNDER SECTION 127 P ASSED AFTER 6.8.2002 TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION OVER THE A SSESSEE'S CASE FROM THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, RANGE 6(2), KANPU R TO THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-6,KANPUR AND THEREFORE, THE TATA SONS LIMITED 35 ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-6,KANPUR IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT AS TO WHETHER HE WAS AUTHO RIZED TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF AN AO OR HOT, IS ILLEGAL A ND VOID AB INITIO FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. CONSEQUENTLY, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HI THE PRESENT CA SE DATED 31.3.2003 PASSED BY THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE (6), KANPUR WAS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION . CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS QUASHED.' 9.2 CONSEQUENTLY ON THIS COUNT ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON 29.12.2008 BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER IS ILL EGAL AND BAD IN LAW FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 10. FOR THE REASONS AFORESAID WE HOLD THAT THE ORDE R OF ASSESSMENT DATED 29.12.2008 WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N AND THEREFORE IS QUASHED AS SUCH, HI RESULT, GROUND NOS . 1 AND 2 ARE ALLOWED.' 3.23. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICA L. IT IS NOTED THAT LD. CIT-DR AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER (PRESEN T INCUMBENT) WHO WAS PERSONALLY PRESENT DURING THE COURSE OF HEA RING BEFORE US, JOINTLY STATED THAT NO SUCH ORDER (AS PRESCRIBED UN DER SECTION 127(1) REQUIRED TO BE PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) IS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS. THUS, IT I S CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO VALID TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO THE ADDITI ONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHO HAD PASSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMEN T ORDER. THUS, IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED WIT HOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW. 3.24. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL W AS THAT THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WHO HAD PASSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACT AS ASSESSING OFFICE R OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE ANALYZED THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD AND FIND THAT SECT ION 2(7A) DEFINES THE TERM OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER: 'ASSESSING OFFICER' MEANS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE R OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WHO IS VESTED WI TH THE RELEVANT JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF DIRECTIONS OR OR DERS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, AND THE JOINT COMM ISSIONER TATA SONS LIMITED 36 OR JOINT DIRECTOR WHO IS DIRECTED UNDER CLAUSE (6) OF SUB- SECTION (4) OF THAT SECTION TO EXERCISE OR PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR ASSIGN ED TO, AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THIS ACT.' 3.25. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE WORD 'ADDITIONAL COMMISSION ER' WAS ALSO ADDED IN THE SAID DEFINITION BY FINANCE ACT, 2007, WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM DAY 01.06.1994. THUS, FROM THE ABOVE, I T IS CLEAR THAT WHEN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED, DEFI NITION OF THE WORD 'ASSESSING OFFICER 1 DID NOT INCLUDE 'ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX'. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT SECTION 2(28C ) DEFINES JOINT COMMISSIONER. SECTION 2(28C) WAS AVAILABLE ON STATU TE SINCE 01.10.1998 AND PROVIDE AS UNDER: '2(28C) JOINT COMMISSIONER MEANS A PERSON APPOINTED TO BE A JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR AN ADDITIO NAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 117.' ON THE OTHER HAND, SECTION 2(1C) DEFINES 'ADDITIONA L COMMISSIONER' AS UNDER: 'ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER MEANS A PERSON AS APPOINTE D TO BE AN ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER S UB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 117.' THUS, COMBINED READING OF ALL THE ABOVE SECTIONS MA KES IT CLEAR THAT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2007, THE LEGISLATURE TREATED 'ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER' AND 'JOINT COMMIS SIONER' DIFFERENTLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PERFORMING THE ROLE AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER, DESPITE THE FACT THAT FOR ALL THE OTHER PU RPOSES 'JOINT COMMISSIONER' MEANT 'ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER' AS WE LL, AS PER SECTION 2(28C). IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS THAT BY WAY OF SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 2007, WORDS 'ADDITIONAL C OMMISSIONER' HAVE ALSO BEEN INSERTED ALONG WITH WORDS 'JOINT COM MISSIONER' IN SECTION 2(7A) WHICH DEFINES THE TERM FOR 'ASSESSMEN T OFFICER' . IN CASE, THE LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE INTENDED AND MEANT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACTING AS ASSESSING OFFICER, 'JOINT COMM ISSIONER' AND 'ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER' MEANS ONE AND THE SAME, T HEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO COME OUT WITH AN AMENDMENT MADE BY FINAN CE ACT, 2007, WHEREIN THE WORD 'ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER' WA S ALSO INSERTED TATA SONS LIMITED 37 IN THE DEFINITION OF 'ASSESSING OFFICER' AS CONTAIN ED IN SECTION 2(7A). THUS, IT IS CLEAR AS PER THE PLAIN READING OF THE S TATUTE THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED, THE 'ADDITIONAL CO MMISSIONER 1 WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACT AS ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.26. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, IT FURTHER NOTED BY US THAT ONLY THAT 'JOINT COMMISSIONER 1 WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACT AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS DIRECTED UNDER CLAUSE (6) OF SUB- SECTION 4 OF SECTION 120 TO EXERCISE OR PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER AS DEFINED U/S 2(7A) OF THE ACT-N OW, IF WE REFER TO SECTION 120. ITS PERUSAL MAKES FURTHER CLEAR THAT O NLY CBDT CAN EMPOWER THE CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS FO R ISSUANCE OF ORDERS TO THE EFFECT THAT POWERS AND FUNCTIONS O F AN ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A PARTICULAR ASSESSEE OR CLASSES OF ASS ESSEE SHALL BE EXERCISED BY A 'JOINT COMMISSIONER'. DESPITE NUMERO US DIRECTIONS, THE REVENUE WAS NOT ABLE TO BRING BEFORE US ANY ORD ER WHEREIN ANY SPECIFIC AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN BY ANY CHIEF COMMISSIO NER OR COMMISSIONER AUTHORIZING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONAL CO MMISSIONER TO PASS IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE FIND FORCE IN TH E ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL THAT AT THE RELEVANT TIME WHEN THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE IN PROGRESS, THE WORD 'ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER' WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE AFORESAID SECTION AND THER EFORE, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSI ONER TO HAVE AUTHORIZED AN ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR EXERCISIN G POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A PARTICULAR ASSESSEE OR '.LASSES OF ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, NO ORDER COUL D BE SHOWN TO US, WHEREBY ANY SUCH AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN TO THE JOI NT COMMISSIONER OF THE RANGE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT ABLE TO SHOW ANY ORDER OR N OTIFICATION IN FAVOUR OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AUTHORIZING H IM FOR PERFORMING THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.27. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. CIT-DR HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION UPON BOARD'S NOTIFICATION NO.267/2001 DAT ED 17-9-2001, NOTIFICATION NO.228/2001 DATED 31.7.2001 AND NOTIFI CATION NO.335/2001 DATED 29-10-2001 WITH A VIEW TO ARGUE T HAT THE JURISDICTION WAS ASSIGNED TO ALL THE OFFICERS INCLU DING 'ADDITIONAL TATA SONS LIMITED 38 COMMISSIONER' FOR EXERCISE OF POWERS AS ASSESSING O FFICER, AND THUS THE 'ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX' WHO HAD PASSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD INHERENT POWERS UNDER THE LAW TO ACT AS ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASS T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3.28. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THESE NOTIFICATIONS, BUT DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT-DR. IT IS NOTED THAT NOTIFICATION NO.335 IS ISSUED MERELY FOR ASSIGNING JURISDICTION TO VARIOUS COMMISSIONERS AND IT IS THUS OF NO USE TO R EVENUE AS FAR AS ISSUE BEFORE US IS CONCERNED. SO FAR AS NOTIFICATIO N NO.267/2001 IS CONCERNED, IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 'IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY CLAUSE (B) OF SUB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 120 OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT,1 961(43 OF 1961), THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, HEREBY DI RECTS THAT THE JOINT COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX OR THE J OINT DIRECTORS OF INCOME TAX, SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS, IN RESPECT OF TERRITORIAL AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES, OR CLASSES OF CASES, IN RESPECT OF WHICH SUCH JOINT COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX ARE AUTHORIS ED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIDE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NOTIFICATION NUMBER S.O.732(E) DATED 31.07.2001, S.O.880(E) DATED 14.09.2001, S.O.881(E) DATED 14.09.2001, S.O. 882(E ) DATED 14.09.2001 AND S.O. 883(E) DATED 14.09.2001 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB- SECTION (IF), EXTRAORDINARY. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 3.29. PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID NOTIFICATION REVEALS THAT ONLY THOSE JOINT COMMISSIONERS SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND F UNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE CONCERNED COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX IN PURSUANCE TO THE REL EVANT NOTIFICATION CONFERRING REQUISITE POWERS TO THE CON CERNED COMMISSIONERS. 3.30. SIMILARLY NOTIFICATION NO.228/2001, SUPRA AUT HORIZE THE COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX TO ISSUE ORDERS FOR AUT HORIZING IN TURN, TATA SONS LIMITED 39 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHO ARE SUBORD INATE TO THEM FOR EXERCISING OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS. IT ALSO, INTER ALIA, AUTHOR IZES THE JOINT COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE SO AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISS IONERS, TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING TO THE OFFICERS WHO ARE SUB ORDINATE TO THEM FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF T HE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FOR SPECIFIED ASSESSEE OR CL ASS OF ASSESSEE. RELEVANT PART OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION IS REPRODUCE D AS UNDER FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: '......(C) AUTHORISE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REFERRED TO IN THIS NOTIFICATION TO ISSUE THE ORDERS IN WRIT ING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCT IONS OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX, WHO ARE SUBORDINATE TO THEM, IN RESPECT OF SUCH CASES OR CL ASSES OF CASES SPECIFIED IN THE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES IN COL UMN (6) OF THE SCHEDULE-I AND SCHEDULE -II OF SUCH PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS SPECIFIED IN THE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES I N COLUMN (5) OF THE SAID SCHEDULES, IN SUCH TERRITORIAL AREA S SPECIFIED HI THE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES IN COLUMN (4) OF THE S AID SCHEDULES, AND HI RESPECT ALL OF INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME; (D) AUTHORISES THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (C) OF THIS NOTIFICATION, T I SSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMA NCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS, WHO ARE SU BORDINATE TO THEM, IN RESPECT OF SUCH SPECIFIED AREA OR PERSO NS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES, IN RESPECT OF WHICH SUCH JOINT COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX ARE AUTHORISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF THIS NOTIFICATION............' 3.31. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID NOTIFICATION I T BECOMES IMPERATIVE ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE TO SHOW US TH AT IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X, WHO HAD PASSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, WAS DULY AUTH ORIZED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER TO DO SO. IT IS NOTED T HAT ANY SUCH ORDER TATA SONS LIMITED 40 WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE, BECAUSE EV EN IN THE NOTIFICATIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE ONLY 'JOINT COMMISSIO NERS' WERE AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICERS. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE IS NOT ABLE TO BRING BEFORE US ANY ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER AUTHORIZING EVEN THE 'JOINT COMMISSION ER' TO PERFORM POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE AS SESSEE. AS PER THE DISCUSSION MADE BY US IN DETAIL IN THE EARLIER PART OF OUR ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO SUCH ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OR IN ANY OTHER RECORD. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN ELABORATELY ANALYSED IN MANY JUDGMENTS BY VARIOUS C OURTS. 3.32. IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEF ORE DELHI BENCH OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :' THE CASE OF MEG A CORPN. LTD. (SUPRA). THE BENCH DISCUSSED ENTIRE LAW AVAILABLE O N THIS ISSUE AND HELCR THAT AN 'ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X' CANNOT IPSO FACTO EXERCISE THE POWERS OR PERFORM THE FUNCTION O F AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE ACT. HE CAN PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AND EXERCISE THE POWERS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY IF HE IS SP ECIFICALLY DIRECTED UNDER SECTION 120(4)(6) OF THE ACT TO DO SO. RELEVA NT PART OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE BENCH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER F OR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: '........... WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVAN CED BY THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T(A), COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MATERIAL PLAC ED ON RECORD. THE CONTROVERSY RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELAT ES TO THE VALIDITY OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 29.12.2008 PA SSED BY ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE 6, NEW DELHI. ACCORDING TO TH E APPELLANT/ASSESSEE, IT IS INCUMBENT UNDER THE SCHEM E OF STATUTE TO VEST THE ADDITIONAL CIT U/S 120(4)(6) OF THE ACT TO EXERCISE OR PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND FU NCTIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE ACT. 5.1 TO EXAMINE THE ABOVE CONTENTION, WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO FIRSTLY EXTRACT SECTION 2(7A) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: '2(7A) ASSESSING OFFICERS TATA SONS LIMITED 41 (7A) 'ASSESSING OFFICER' MEANS THE ASSISTANT COMMIS SIONER OR 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 3 OR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 4 OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WHO IS VESTED WI TH THE RELEVANT JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF DIRECTIONS OR OR DERS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (L)OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, AND THE 6 [ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR] 6 '[ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR] 7 5 JOINT COMMISSIONER OR JOINT DIRECTOR WHO IS DIRECTED UNDE R CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF THAT SECTION TO EXERCISE OR PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON , OR ASSIGNED TO, AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THIS ACT;' 5.2 A PLAIN READING OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION WOUL D SHOW THAT IT IS IN TWO PARTS. THE FIRST PART PROVIDES TH AT ASSESSING OFFICER MEANS THE 'ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER' OR 'DEPU TY COMMISSIONER' OR 'ASSISTANT DIRECTOR' OR 'DEPUTY DI RECTOR' OR 'INCOME TAX OFFICER' WHO IS VESTED WITH THE RELE VANT JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSU ED UNDER SECTION 120(1) OR 120(2) OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT. THE SECOND PART PROVIDES THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MEA NS THE 'ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER' OR 'ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR' OR 'JOINT COMMISSIONER' OR 'JOINT DIRECTOR' WHO IS DIRECTED U NDER SECTION 120(4)(B) OF THE ACT TO EXERCISE OR PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON OR ASS IGNED TO AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THIS ACT. IN OTHER WORDS , IT IS MANIFEST THAT ASSESSING OFFICER INTER-ALIA MEANS AD DITIONAL COMMISSIONER WHO IS DIRECTED UNDER SECTION 120(4)(B ) OF THE ACT TO EXERCISE OR PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE PO WERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON OR ASSIGNED TO AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, AN ADDITIONAL COMMIS SIONER CAN ONLY BE DIRECTED U/S 120(4)(B) OF THE ACT TO 'A SSISTANT COMMISSIONER' OR 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER' OR 'ASSISTAN T DIRECTOR' OR 'DEPUTY DIRECTOR' OR INCOME TAX OFFICE R' UNDER THE ACT. THIS INTERPRETATION ALSO DERIVES STRENGTH FROM THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 120(4)(&) OF THE AC T WHICH READS AS UNDER: TATA SONS LIMITED 42 '120. JURISDICTION OF INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES (4) WI THOUT PREJUDICE 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 S PECIFIED THEREIN,- (B) EMPOWER THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIO NER OR COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING THAT THE PO WERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASSI GNED TO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPE CT OF ANY SPECIFIED AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES, SHALL BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED BY AN ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONE R OR AN ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR A JOINT COMMISSIONER OR A JO INT DIRECTOR, AND, WHERE ANY ORDER IS MADE UNDER THIS C LAUSE, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR I N ANY RULE MADE THERE UNDER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIONER OR A JOIN T DIRECTOR, BY WHOM THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS ARE TO B E EXERCISED OR PERFORMED UNDER SUCH ORDER, AND ANY PR OVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF THE J OINT COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT APPLY.' 5.3 IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THE SAID PROVISION PROVIDE S THAT BOARD MAY BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDER AND SUBJECT T O SUCH CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE S PECIFIED THEREIN EMPOWER THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRI TING THAT THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON OR AS TH E CASE MAY BE, ASSIGNED TO, ASSESSING OFFICER BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY SPECIFIED AREA OR PERSONS OR CLAS SES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES SHALL BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED BY AN ADDI TIONAL COMMISSIONER OR AN ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR A JOINT COMMISSIONER OR A JOINT DIRECTOR AND WHERE ANY ORDE R IS MADE UNDER THIS CLAUSE, REFERENCE IN ANY OTHER PROV ISION OF THIS ACT OR HI ANY RULE MADE THERE UNDER TO THE ASS ESSING TATA SONS LIMITED 43 OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH AD DITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMIS SIONER OR A JOINT DIRECTOR BY WHOM, THE POWERS AND FUNCTIO NS ARE TO BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED UNDER SUCH ORDER AND A NY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTIO N OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT APPLY . 5.4 THE POSITION WHICH EMERGES THUS IS THAT AN ADDI TIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IPSO FACTO CANNOT EXERCI SE THE POWERS OR PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFF ICER UNDER THE ACT. HE CAN PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AND, EX ERCISE THE POWERS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY IF HE IS SP ECIFICALLY DIRECTED UNDER SECTION 120(4)(6) OF THE ACT. 3.33. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF PRACHI LEATHER (P.) LTD V. AM. CIT [ IT APPEAL NO. 26(L) OF 2010, DATED 8.12.2010] RELYING UPON ITS EA RLIER ORDER IN ITA NO.744/2004/LUCKNOW FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 DEC IDED THIS ISSUE ON THE SIMILAR LINES AFTER CONSIDERING AND FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. NALINI MAHAJAN (SUPRA). IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THIS DECISIO N HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPO RATIONS LTD, SUPRA AND RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER AS DISCUSSE D THEREIN IS REPRODUCED BELOW: '16.2 FROM THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS , IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT SO FAR AS ADDL. COMMISSIONER IS CO NCERNED, FIRSTLY HE HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF ' ASSESSING OFFICER' GIVEN UNDER SECTION 2(7A) OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 1.6.1994 AS A RESULT OF RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMEN T MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007 BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT I S ALSO CLEAR THAT THE ADD) COMMISSIONER WILL BE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 2(7A) SO AMENDED ONLY IF HE DIRECTED UNDER CLAUSE (6)OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECT ION 120 TO EXERCISE OR PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND FU NCTIONS CONCERNED ON OR ASSIGNED TO AN ASSESSING OFFICER; M EANING THEREBY THAT THE ADDL. CIT CAN FUNCTION OR CAN EXER CISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OF FICER IF TATA SONS LIMITED 44 HE IS EMPOWERED BY THE CBDT AS REQUIRED UNDER CLAUS E (6) OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 120....... 18.1 SO FAR AS THE ISSUE BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOW CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS AS D ISCUSSED HEREINBEFORE THAT THE ADDITIONAL CIT COULD ACT AND EXERCISE THE POWERS OF AN AO ONLY IN CONSEQUENCE UPON DELEGA TION OF SUCH AUTHORITY BY THE BOARD, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AS ENVISAG ED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120(4)(6) OF THE ACT. HOW EVER, THE POWER GIVEN TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BEING IN CONSEQUENCE UPO N THE DELEGATION OF POWER DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE LEGISLAT URE, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WERE DUTY BOUND, IF AT ALL THEY WERE TO EXERCISE SUCH DELEGATED POWER TO ACT ACCORDING TO THE PROVIS IONS OF LAW; MEANING THEREBY THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AS THE CASE MAYBE, IF AT ALL THEY WANTE D TO AUTHORIZE THE ADDITIONAL CIT TO ACT AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF AN AO, TO PASS A PROPER ORDER DELEGATI NG SUCH FUNCTIONS/POWERS UPON HIN THIS VIEW OF OURS IS FULL Y SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. NALINI MAHAJAN V. DIT [20011 252 IT R 123/R20021122 TAXMAN 897 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WHILE DISCUSSING THE POWERS OF ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR INVESTIGATION, HELD AS UNDER: 'IT IS NOW WELL-SETTLED THAT WHEN A POWER IS GIVEN TO DO A CERTAIN THING HI A CERTAIN MANNER, THE SAME MUST BE DONE IN THAT MANNER OR NOT AT ALL. A DELEGATION OF POWER IS ESSENTIALLY A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION. SUCH A POWER OF DELEGATION MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE. THE DIRECTOR HIMSE LF FOR CERTAIN MATTERS IS THE DELEGATING AUTHORITY. HE, UN LESS THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY STATES, CANNOT SUB-DELEGATE HIS P OWER TO ANY OTHER AUTHORITY. IN ANY EVENT, IF AN AUTHORITY, WHICH HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE SUCH AN AUTHORIZATION, DID SO, THE SAME WOULD BE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS ULTRA VIRES. THUS, TATA SONS LIMITED 45 UNLESS AND UNTIL AN AMENDMENT IS CARRIED OUT, BY RE ASON OF THE REDESIGNATION ITSELF, READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, THE ADDL. DIRECTOR DOES NOT GE T ANY STATUTORY POWER TO ISSUE AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE WAR RANT. THEREFORE, THE ADDL. DIRECTOR (INVESTIGATION) CANNO T BE SAID TO HAVE ANY POWER TO ISSUE ANY AUTHORIZATION OR WAR RANT TO JOINT DIRECTOR. CONSEQUENTLY, NOTIFICATION DT. 6TH SEP. 1989 IS NOT VALID IN LAW TO THE SAID EXTENT. 18.2 SO FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, THOUG H WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE POWERS OF ADDITIONAL CIT BUT THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT WHICH WAS, THOUGH IN RELATION TO POWERS OF ADDITION AL DIRECTOR (INVESTIGATION), IS FULLY APPLICABLE TO TH E PRESENT CASE. 18.3 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE DISCUSSION AND FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE H ON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. NALINI MAHAJAN (SUPRA), FIRST OF ALL WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDL.CI T, RANGE-6, KANPUR HAVING NOT BEEN EMPOWERED TO EXERCISE OR PER FORM THE POWERS OR FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY HIM WAS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO.......' 3.34. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEE N EXPRESSED BY JODHPUR BENCH OF ITA IN THE CASE CITY GARDEN V, ITO [20121 21 TAXMANN.COM 373/51 SOT 195 (URG) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC ORDER ISSUED IN PURSUA NCE TO SECTION 120(4)(6) SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING JOINT COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX TO EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTION AS CONFERRED ON OR ASSIGNED TO AN ASSESSING OFFICER BY OR UNDER THE AC T OR A NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE ACT, HE IS NO T COMPETENT TO ACT AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER AND PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDE R. 3.35. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY LUCKNOW BENCH OF IT AT IN THE CASE OF MICROFIN SECURITY (P.) LTD. V. ADDL. CI T [2005] 3 SOT 302 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY ALLOCAT ION BEING MADE IN FAVOUR OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER TO MAKE A N ASSESSMENT, TATA SONS LIMITED 46 HE CANNOT ASSUME FOR HIMSELF SUCH AN AUTHORITY SO A S TO PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3.36. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN RECENTLY IN ANOTH ER JUDGMENT BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE IT AT IN THE CASE OF HARVIND ER SINGH JAGGI V. ASSTT. CIT [2016] 157 ITD 869/67 TAXMANN.COM 109. RELEVANT PART OF OBSERVATIONS OF THE BENCH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: '.......AS REGARD THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT NO ORDER UNDER SECTION 127 WAS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THE REVENUE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDL . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS PROVIDED CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES THROUGH THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND, THEREFORE, NO SEPAR ATE ORDER UNDER SECTION 127 WAS REQUIRED TO BE PASSED B Y THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. HOWEVER, NO SUCH ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CONFERRING THE CONCURREN T JURISDICTION TO THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X OVER THE CASES OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS EITHER AVAIL ABLE ON ASSESSMENT RECORD, OR WAS PRODUCED BY THE REVENUE. THUS, IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH ORDER, IT CAN'T BE ESTABLISH ED THAT SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED WAS WITHIN THE JURISDI CTION OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED, BY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN THE CASE BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION, IS VOID AB INITIO. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED.' 3.37. IN THE CASE OFBINDAL APPARELS LTD. (SUPRA), D ELHI BENCH OF IT AT TOOK A SIMILAR VIEW AND HELD THAT IN VIEW OF DEF INITION OF ASSESSING OFFICER CONTAINED U/S 2(7A), AN ADDITIONA L COMMISSIONER CANNOT BE AN AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME. THE BENCH ANALYSED THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 2(7A) AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2007. 3.38. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS ALSO SUB MITTED BY LD. CIT-DR TO DEFEND THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN ANY CASE TATA SONS LIMITED 47 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY AN OFFICER OF THE RANK OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WHICH IS MUCH SUPERIOR TO T HE RANK OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THUS NO PREJUDICE CAN BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN DONE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT REASON ING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT-DR TO DEFEND THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT OR DER DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL FORCE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT J URISDICTIONAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MUST BE PERFORMED STRICTLY IN THE MANNER AS HAVE BEEN PRESC RIBED AND IF IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THE MANNER AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW, THEN IT BECOMES NULLITY IN THE EYES OF LAW. HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ANJUM M. H. GHASWALA [20011 252 ITR 1/119 TAXMAN 352 OBSERVED THAT IT IS A NORMAL RULE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT WHEN A STATUE VESTS CERTAIN POWERS IN AN AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, THEN THAT AUTHORITY IS BOUN D TO EXERCISE IT ONLY IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THE STATUE ONLY. 3.39. HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DEALT WITH A SIMILAR SITU ATION HI THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI (SUPRA} WHEREIN T HE SAID ASSESSEE RAISED AN ISSUE THAT REQUISITE SANCTION PR ESCRIBED U/S 151 FOR REOPENING OF AN ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE O BTAINED BY THE AO FROM JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHEREAS TH E SAME WAS GRANTED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THEREFORE THE SAME WAS NULLITY IN THE EYES OF LAW. REVENUE TOOK A STAN D THAT SANCTION WAS GRANTED BY AN OFFICER SUPERIOR IN RANK AND THER EFORE, NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT HON'BLE H IGH COURT DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE AND OB SERVED THAT: '........THE EXPRESSION 'JOINT COMMISSIONER' IS DEF INED IN SECTION 2(28C) TO MEAN A PERSON APPOINTED TO BE A J OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR AN ADDITIONAL COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX UNDER SECTION 117(1). SECTION 151(2 ) MANDATES THAT THE SATISFACTION HAS TO BE OF THE JOI NT COMMISSIONER. THE EXPRESSION HAS A DISTINCT MEANING BY VIRTUE OF THE DEFINITION IN SECTION 2(28C). THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT A JOINT COMMISSIONER WITHIN TH E MEANING OF SECTION 2(28C). THERE IS NO STATUTORY PR OVISION UNDER WHICH POWER TO BE EXERCISED BY AN OFFICER CAN BE~ EXERCISED BY A SUPERIOR OFFICER. WHEN THE STATUTE M ANDATES TATA SONS LIMITED 48 THE SATISFACTION OF A PARTICULAR FUNCTIONARY FOR TH E EXERCISE OF A POWER, THE SATISFACTION MUST BE OF THAT AUTHORITY . WHERE A STATUTE REQUIRES SOMETHING TO BE DONE IN A PARTICUL AR MANNER, IT HAS TO BE DONE IN THAT MANNER ONLY...... ......' 3.40. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE AN D FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDE R HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW HI AS MUCH AS REVEN UE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ADDITIONAL COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX WHO HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD VALID AUTHORITY TO PERFORM AND EXERCISE THE POWERS AND FU NCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO PASS THE I MPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAV E NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO HOLD THE SAME AS NULLITY AND, THEREFO RE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS QUASHED HAVING BEEN PASSED WITH OUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. WE ALSO FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSI DERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. FO R A.Y. 2002-03, AND THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.06.2017, IN ITA N O. 6981/MUM/2005 DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL EV EN THOUGH TRIED HIS BEST AND SUBMITTED EXHAUSTIVE ARGUMENTS TO COMPEL US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW FROM THE VIEW WHICH HAS BEEN TAKE BY THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2001-02, HE COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE, WHICH M AY PROVE THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A.Y . 2001-02. HE WENT ON AGAIN AND AGAIN SUBMITTING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THA T IF THE ENTIRE ORDER IS TATA SONS LIMITED 49 QUASHED AFTER SUCH A LONG TIME WITHOUT DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WOULD CAUSE UNUSUAL FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE REVENUE TO RE FUND THE TAXES PAID. THE STANDING COUNSEL SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THIS TRIBUN AL IS NOT TO DECIDE THE MERCY PETITION BUT HAS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE BEFORE I T IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SETTLED JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW. THE TRIBUNAL I S NOT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF HUMAN AND IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION. W E NOTED THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHELLY PRODUCT S & ANOTHER (261 ITR 367) CLEARLY HELD THAT TAXES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE O N THE RETURNED INCOME CANNOT BE REFUNDED. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE P RINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE HOLD THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE, THE ADDITIONAL CIT IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID ORDER U/S. 120(4)(B) HAS WELL AS SECTION 127(1) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED POWER OF A ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO PASS IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION WOULD HAVE NO SHOW AND, THEREF ORE, QUASH THE SAME. 19. THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL, IN THE END, HAS TAKEN THE CONTENTION THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. SIMILAR REQUEST, WE NOTED HA S BEEN MADE BY THE LEARNED DR BEFORE F BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE ARGUING THE CASE OF TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN, WE NOTED THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THIS CONTENTION IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 18. WE DO NOT FIND ANY VALID REASON TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. AS STATED EARLIER BY US, TATA SONS LIMITED 50 EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE ADDL. CIT HAS TO BE EXAMINED ON THE BASIS OF NOTIFICATION / ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 120(4)(B) INASMUCH AS SECTION 127(1) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONT EXT, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED UPON CERTAIN NOTIFICATIONS TO JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIT. AS FAR AS ANY ORDER UNDER SECTION 127(1) IS CONCERN ED, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS FAIRLY SUBMITTED TH AT NO SUCH ORDER EXIST ON RECORD. AT LEAST, NOTHING WAS BROU GHT TO OUR NOTICE IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC QUERY BEING RAISED BY THE BENC H. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ISSUES ARE TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF F ACTS ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE RELEVAN T NOTIFICATIONS PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS CITED THE RE IS NO NECESSITY OF RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING MAINTAINABILITY OF THE ADD ITION GROUND ON THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN ONLY CHALLENGE THE J URISDICTIONAL ISSUE UNDER SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN SUCH SUBMISSIONS. A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 124 WOULD S HOW THAT IT REFERS TO AN ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 120 WHEREAS WE ARE CONCERNED WITH AN ORDER PURPORTE D TO BE PASSED UNDER SECTION 120(4)(B) EMPOWERING THE ADDL. CIT TO ACT AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. FOR THAT REASON WE DO NOT FEEL IT EXPEDIENT TO DEAL WITH THE DECISI ONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THAT REG ARD. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND SUP PLEMENTARY ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IS BINDING ON US. WE, THEREFORE, QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ON LEGAL ISSUE. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED ON MERITS IN ITA 3745/MUM/20016 BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND, HENCE, NOT ADJUDICATED. 20. SINCE, WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON LEGAL ISSUE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 3658/MUM/200 6, IN CONSEQUENCE, BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME IS ALSO DISMISSED AS SUCH. TATA SONS LIMITED 51 21. NOW COMING TO APPEAL IN ITA NO. 193/MUM/2006. T HIS APPEAL HAS ARISEN OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE CIT HAS INVOKED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER 2 63 IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 154 WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT COMP LETED U/S. 143(3) ON 15.03.2005. WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 154 WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U /S. 143(3) HAS ALSO BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT BY INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S. 263 HAS BECOME INVALI D. WE, ACCORDINGLY, QUASH THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 263. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (RAM LAL NEGI) (P K B ANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT MUMBAI; DATED: 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 SA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A),MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 5. DR, D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER #TRUE COPY # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI