I.T.O.-4(3), Agra V. Sh. Ram Chand Panjwani, Agra

ITA 475/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60170 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ATESHAM ANSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: P N AGARWAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Invalid notice; Opportunity of being heard; Procedural lapse; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 1998-99 TO 2000-2001 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. RAMCHAND PANJWANI, 4(3), AGRA. F-111, KAMLA NAGAR, AGRA. (PAN : AGRPP 2265 R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ATESHAM ANSARI, JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.N. AGARWAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 29.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 08.06.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM: ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA DATED 27.09.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 1999-2000 AND 2000-01. IN THREE APPEALS, THE REVENUE CHALLENG ED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ANNULLING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE IT ACT BECAUSE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN F URTHER THREE APPEALS, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CANCELIN G THE PENALTIES U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT BECAUSE ALL THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE A NNULLED. ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AT LENGTH, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT EARLIER, THE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OF BY THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESS EE IN ITA NO. 294, 295, 296, 244 AND 245 OF 2006 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS VIDE ORDER DATED 18.04.2007, WHEREBY THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE CERTAIN ISSUES T O THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L TOOK UP THE MATTER AGAIN FOR HEARING IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ONE OF THE ISS UES, WHICH HAS BEEN SET ASIDE WAS WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION THAT THE ACIT, AGRA WHO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT VESTED WITH THE PROPER JURISDICTION . THIS OBJECTION HAS BEEN REBUTTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY OBSER VING AS UNDER : IT IS SEEN THAT W.E.F. 1.7.01 THE JURISDICTION OVER A CASE RESTS WITH THE ADDL. /JT. CIT BEING RANGE AUTHORITY AND T HE VARIOUS AO POSTED IN THE RANGE HOLD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OV ER THE CASE FALLING UNDER THE JURISDICTION WITH THE ADDL. CIT/JCIT. THE CIT-II, AGRA VIDE HIS ORDER F.NO.CIT-II/AGRA/03-04/JURSD./120 & 124 D T. 21.02.04 ASSIGNED CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES FAL LING UNDER THE AO CIR.4(1), AGRA IN ADDITION TO HIS OWN DUTIES TO SHR I SAMPORNAND, ACIT. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, AGRA HAS ALLOTTED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, ACIT, THE AO WITH THE APPROVAL OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, AGRA HA S ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148. THUS THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING JURISDICTION IS NOT TENABLE. ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 3 3.1 IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER 1. RETURN WAS FILED WITH ITO-4(3), AGRA HAVING INCOME LESS THAN 5 LAC. 2. THE RETURN OF INCOME OF AY 01-02 WAS FILED EXCEEDIN G INCOME OF RS.5 LACS WITH ACIT-4(1), AGRA. 3. SOME OF THE TIME BARRING CASES OF ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1) , AGRA WERE ASSIGNED TO ACIT (HQ) OF CIT-2, AGRA INCLUDING OF T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF AY 2001-02 ONLY. 4. THE ACIT HQ. WAS NOT HOLDING THE CONCURRENT JURISDI CTION OVER ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), AGRA OR WITH ANY OF THE ITO OF RANGE 4 (1), AGRA. 5. NO WRITTEN ORDER WAS MADE BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORIT Y VESTING JURISDICTION TO ACIT HQ. IN RESPECT OF CASES OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OF THE ASSESSEE WHOSE CASES ONLY RELATING TO AY 2001-0 2 WERE ASSIGNED TO ACIT HQ. 6. THE ACIT HQ. WAS NOT HOLDING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE RELATING TO ANY YEAR OTHER THAN AY 01-02. 7. THE NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED AND SIGNED ON 31.3.04 BY THE ACIT HQ. IS VOID & ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 8. THAT ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED BY ITO 4(3) AGRA WHO WAS HOLDING THE INITIAL JURISDICTION. 9. THAT NO NOTICE U/S. 148 IS ISSUED BY THE ITO 4(3), AGRA WHO FINALLY MADE THE ASSESSMENT. 3.2 THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ANNULLED THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS ON THE P OINT OF JURISDICTION ONLY AND ALLOWED ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DEC IDING THE OTHER ISSUES ON MERITS. ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 4 THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 2.1 TO 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2.1 I HAVE EXAMINED THE MATTER AND FIND THAT COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II, AGRA HAD PASSED AN ORDER DATED 21.1. 04 WHICH READS AS UNDER- IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED ON ME U/S. 120(2) READ WITH SEC. 120(5) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, IT IS HEREBY ORDER ED THAT SHRI SAMPOORNAND, ACIT WILL HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF THE CSES FALLING IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO-CIRCLE- 4(1), AGRA. THIS WILL BE IN ADDITION TO THE WORK AL READY ASSIGNED AT PRESENT TO SHRI SAMPOORNANAND. THIS ORD ER WILL TAKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND TILL FURTHER ORDERS. CONS EQUENTLY, THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, AGRA WILL ISSUE ORDERS REGARDIN G THE SPECIFIC WORK TO BE ASSIGNED TO SHRI SAMPOORNANAD. THUS, IT WILL BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE CIT-I I, AGRA VIDE ORDER AS REPRODUCED ABOVE HAD ALSO ORDERED THAT THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, AGRA WILL ISSUE ORDERS REGARDING THE SPECI FIC WORK TO BE ASSIGNED TO SHRI SAMPOORNAND. AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT-II, AGRA, THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, AGRA PASSED ORDER F.N O.ADDI.CIT/R- 4/SCRUTINY/03-04/1466 DATED 23.1.04, AS PER WHICH C ERTAIN CASES WERE ASSIGNED TO SHRI SAMPOORNAND, ACIT(HQ./ADMN.). AS PER THIS ORDER THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS MENTIONED AT S.N O.3 WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO SHRI SAMPORNAND, ACIT ONLY FOR AY 2 001-02. THUS, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER DATED 21.1.04 OF CIT-II, AG RA & ORDER DATED 23.1.04 OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, AGRA THAT THE CASE O F THE APPELLANT WAS TRANSFERRED TO SHRI SAMPOORNAND ONLY FOR THE AY 200 1-02, WHEREAS SHRI SAMPOORNANAND THE THEN ACIT (HQ/ADMN.) HAS ISS UED THE NOTICE U/S. 148 TO THE APPELLANT FOR THE IMPUGNED AYS., I. E. 98-99, 99-2000 & 2000-01 FOR WHICH HE DID NOT HOLD ANY JURISDICTION IN VIEW OF FACT AS ALREADY STATED THAT ACIT(HQ./ADMN.) WAS SPECIFICALL Y CONFERRED THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLANT ONLY FOR AY 2001-02. THEREFORE, AS THE NOTICES U/S 148 FOR ALL THESE THREE YEARS HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY AN OFFICER WHO HAD NO VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF THE APPELLANT EXCEPT FOR AY 2001-02 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSME NTS FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF INVALID NOTICES HAVE NO LEGAL LEGS TO STAN D, THEREFORE, I ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT FOR ALL THESE THREE YEARS AS THE NOT ICE ISSUED U/S. 148 FOR REOPENING THE CASES OF THESE YEARS SUFFERS FROM LACK OF JURISDICTION ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 5 AND WHICH IS NOT A PROCEDURAL LAPSE BUT A DEFECT RE LATING TO JURISDICTION WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER A ND WHICH CANNOT BE CURED. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE CASE FO R ALL THESE THREE YEARS VIDE PARA NO. 5 DATED 18.4.07 OBSERVED AS UND ER UNDER THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE FINDI NGS REACHED HEREINBEFORE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), BEING NON-SP EAKING ON THE AFORESAID TWO GROUNDS, THE SAME IS HEREBY SET A SIDE AND THE MATTER RESTORED BACK TO HIM WITH THE DIRECTION TO P ASS SPEAKING ORDER THEREIN AND ALSO DISPOSE OF ALL OTHER ISSUES AFRESH INCLUDING THOSE ON MERIT ON WHICH REVENUE HAVE PREF ERRED APPEAL. HE SHALL AFFORD PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PARTIES IN ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS, THE CROSS APPEALS BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FOR THE AY 99-2000 STAND ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT WILL SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE HONBLE ITAT, AGR A ALSO DIRECTED THE CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE ISSUES AF RESH INCLUDING ALL THOSE ON MERITS ON WHICH REVENUE HAS PREFERRED APPE AL. HOWEVER, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT AS I HAVE ANNULLED THE ASSES SMENTS ON THE POINT OF JURISDICTION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE OTHE R ISSUES ON MERIT WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY MY PREDECESSOR AN D NO ADVERSE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE HONBLE ITAT, AGRA WITH REGARD TO HIS FINDINGS. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 4. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND REFERRED TO JURISDICTIONAL ORDER OF CIT-II, AGRA DATED 21.01.2004 REPRODUCED A BOVE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT-II, IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED U/S. 12 0 OF THE IT ACT HAS ORDERED THAT SHRI SAMPOORNANAND, ACIT WILL HAVE CONCURRENT JURIS DICTION IN RESPECT OF THE CASES FALLING IN THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFI CER, CIRCLE 4(1) AGRA AND THIS WILL BE IN ADDITION TO THE WORK ALREADY ASSIGNED AT PRES ENT TO SHRI SAMPOORNANAND. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT IN THE SA ME JURISDICTIONAL ORDER ALSO ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 6 DIRECTED THE RANGE ADDL. CIT-IV, AGRA TO ISSUE ORDE RS FOR ASSIGNING SPECIFIC WORK TO SHRI SAMPOORNANAND. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-IV PASS ED THE JURISDICTIONAL ORDER DATED 23.01.2004 (PB-11) IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECT IONS OF THE CBDT AND CIT-II DATED 21.01.2004 AND ASSIGNED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 APART FROM HAVING CONCURREN T JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), AGRA WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. T HE LD. DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SHRI SAMPOORNANAND, ACIT (HQ/ADMN.) WAS, THUS, HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CIRCLE 4(1 ), AGRA. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI SAMPOORNANAND, ACIT WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON THE BASIS OF THE INCRIMI NATING MATERIAL, FOUND THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH PE RTAINS TO ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS AND ACCORDINGLY REOPENED THE AS SESSMENTS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/ S. 148 ON DATED 31.03.2004 (PB-136). THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ACIT, SHRI SAMPOORNANAND WAS HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH ITO CIRCLE 4(1) , AGRA, THEREFORE, HE WAS HAVING JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENTS UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT-II. THE AO HAS REJECTED THE OBJECTION OF THE AS SESSEE REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF SHRI SAMPOORNANAND IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSEL F. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ANNULLING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT IN ONE RANGE, ADDITIONAL CIT TRANSFERS CASES FROM ONE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANOTHER ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 7 ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALL THE ASSESSING OFFICERS WO RK UNDER THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF THE SAME RANGE. THEREFORE, NO PREJU DICE IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 HAVE BEEN INITIATED B Y THE ACIT, HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF CIRCLE 4 (1), AGRA. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 HAVE NOT BEEN FO LLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ANNU LLING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTIES CONSEQUENTLY. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REFERRED TO P B-13, WHICH IS JURISDICTIONAL ORDER OF LD. CIT-II, AGRA DATED 21.01.2004 AND PB-1 1, WHICH IS JURISDICTIONAL ORDER OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE-IV, AGRA DATED 23.01.2004, WHER EBY SHRI SAMPOORNANAND, ACIT (HQ./ADMN.) WAS ASSIGNED CONCURRENT JURISDICTI ON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ONLY. THEREFORE, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI SAMPOORNANAND, ACIT WAS HAVING NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF ASSESSEE F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS, I.E., 1998-99, 99-2000 AND 2000-01. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE SPECIFIC WORK WAS ASSIGNED TO SHRI SAMPOORNANAND, ACIT AND N O ORDER WAS PASSED ASSIGNING HIM THE WORK TO DISPOSE OF THE CASES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ANNULLING THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION IN FAVOUR OF SHRI S AMPOORNANAND, WHO HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE IT ACT IN THESE CASES. H E HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 8 FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WITH ITO WARD 1(1), AGRA (PB-137) AND THAT ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. OM PRAKASH AGARWAL AND ORS. IN ITA NO. 431/AGRA/2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 07.10.2009 ON TH E SAME ISSUE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS REFERRED TO PAGE 3 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE NOTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER ORDER VESTING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE WITH ACIT CIRCLE 4(1 ), AGRA, HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE IT ACT AND ACCORDIN GLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 WERE BEYOND THE JURISDICTION A ND WERE NOT VALID. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : (I). DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS VS. ACIT, 246 ITR 133 (CAL.), IN WHICH IT WAS HELD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION MEANS THAT A SUBORDINATE A UTHORITY CAN DEAL WITH THE MATTER EQUALLY WITH ANY SUPERIOR AUTHORITY IN ITS ENTIRETY SO THAT EITHER ONE OF SUCH JURISDICTIONS C AN BE INVOKED. IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WHEN ONE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE DEALT WITH BY ONE SUPERIOR OFFIC ER AND THE OTHER PART WILL BE DEALT WITH BY A SUBORDINATE OFFICER. IN THIS CASE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CONSIDERING TH E NOTIFICATION FOUND THAT EXCESSIVE AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ACIT. THEREFOR E, IT WAS HELD THAT NOTIFICATION HAD TO BE MODIFIED WHILE CONSIDERING T HE WRIT PETITION. ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 9 (II). ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF SMT. N. KAASIVISALAM VS. ACIT, 93 TTJ (CHENNAI) 537, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD ASTT. CIT NOT HAVING INITIAL JURISDICTION TO MAKE REGULAR ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY HIM AND CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. (III). ORDER OF ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF PRACHI LEATHERS PVT. LTD., KANPUR VS. ADDL. CIT IN ITA NO. 26(L)/2010, I N WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT LETTER SENT BY THE ITO (TECHNICAL) CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AN ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT IN EXERCISE OF POWERS U/S. 120 OR 127 OF TH E ACT. (IV). ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RESHAM PETROTECH LTD., 136 ITD 185 (AHMEDABAD), THE RELEVA NT HEAD-NOTES OF WHICH READ AS UNDER : WHETHER, THEREFORE, JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFI CER TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 DEPENDS UPON ISSUANCE OF A VALID NOTICE AND, IN ABSENCE OF SAME, ENTIRE P ROCEEDINGS TAKEN BY HIM WOULD BECOME VOID FOR WANT OF JURISDIC TION HELD, YES. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 4( 3), AGRA, WHO HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PASSING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND THE A SSESSEE ALSO FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME IN THE SAME WARD. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPU TE THAT CIT-II, AGRA VIDE HIS ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 10 JURISDICTIONAL ORDER AND IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONF ERRED ON HIM U/S. 120 OF THE IT ACT HAS PASSED THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2004, WHEREBY IT WAS ORDERED THAT SHRI SAMPOORNANAND, ACIT WILL HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTI ON IN RESPECT OF THE CASES FALLING IN THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER, C IRCLE 4(1), AGRA. IT WAS ALSO DIRECTED THAT THIS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WILL BE IN ADDITION TO THE WORK ALREADY ASSIGNED AT PRESENT TO SHRI SAMPOORNANAND. IT WAS A LSO DIRECTED THAT THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-IV, AGRA WILL ISSUE ORDERS REGARDING THE SPEC IFIC WORK TO BE ASSIGNED TO SHRI SAMPOORNANAND (PB-13), WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCED IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ABOVE. PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE ORDE R DATED 23.01.2004 PASSED BY ADDL. CIT, RANGE-IV, AGRA, IN WHICH THE ADDL. CIT N OTED THAT IN PURSUANCE OF CBDT INSTRUCTION AND JURISDICTIONAL ORDER OF CIT-II DATED 21.01.2004, THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT CASES OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02 WITH ASSESSMENTS OF OTHER ASSESSEES HAVING ASSIGNED TO SHRI SAMPOORNANA ND, ACIT(HQ./ADMN.), HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF AC IT, CIRCLE 4(1), AGRA WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE L D. CIT(A) MISUNDERSTOOD BOTH THE JURISDICTIONAL ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT-II, AGR A AND ADDL. CIT, RANGE-IV, AGRA WHILE QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE LD. CIT -II, AGRA IN HIS JURISDICTIONAL ORDER U/S. 120 OF THE IT ACT DIRECTED THAT SHRI SAM POORNANAND, ACIT WILL HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF THE CASES FAL LING IN THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 4(1), AGRA. THE LANGUAGE U SED IN THE JURISDICTIONAL ORDER THUS, CANNOT BE GIVEN DIFFERENT MEANING AND CANNOT BE INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAY ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 11 TO QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ONCE CONCURR ENT JURISDICTION HAS BEEN ASSIGNED BY THE CIT U/S. 120 OF THE IT ACT TO SHRI SAMPOORNANAND WITH ASSESSING OFFICER, CIRCLE 4(1), THEN SHRI SAMPOORNANAND WILL BE HAVING JURISDICTION OVER ALL THE CASES OF ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 4(1), AGRA IN ADDITION TO OTHER WORK ALREADY ASSIGNED TO HIM OR WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO HIM LATER O N. ADMITTEDLY, SHRI SAMPOORNANAND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 31.03.2004. THUS, SHRI SAMPOORNANAND WAS HAVING JUR ISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF CIRCLE 4(1) AGRA AND WAS VESTED WITH THE POWERS TO DEAL WITH THE ASSESSMENTS OR REASSESSMENTS OF THIS CIRCLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL ORDER PASSED BY CIT-II, AGRA U/S. 120 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ORDE R OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE-IV, AGRA DATED 23.01.2004 IS ALSO VERY SPECIFIC THAT APART F ROM THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, SHRI SAMP OORNANAND WAS ALSO HAVING THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), AGRA WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. NOTHING IS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR BEFORE US TO PROVE THAT THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WAS WITHDRAWN ON THE DATE OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE ABOVE FACTS , THEREFORE, WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) MISUNDERSTOOD THE JURISDICTIONA L ORDER IN THE MATTER IN ISSUE. WE MAY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS NOTED THAT WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 02, IT WAS OBSERVED ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL THAT VARIOUS UNDISCLOSED INCOME PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS UNDER APPEALS. THEREFORE, ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 12 WITH THE APPROVAL OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE IV, AGRA, NOT ICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED ON 31.03.2004. THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTION OF JURISD ICTION BEFORE THE AO, WHICH WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THE ACIT, SHRI SAMPOORNANAND WAS A SSIGNED CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES FALLING UNDER THE JURIS DICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 4(1), AGRA IN ADDITION TO HIS DUTIES ALREADY ASSIGN ED TO HIM AND FURTHER SCRUTINY CASES ALLOTTED TO HIM FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEA R. THEREFORE, THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE FACTS THAT SHRI SAMPOORANANAND, ACIT WAS HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDIC TION OVER THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS AS PER ORDER OF CIT-II AND ADDL. CIT, RANGE-IV, AGRA. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOU LD NOT HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THIS GROUND. 6.1 WE MAY FURTHER NOTE THAT APART FROM THE ABOVE F INDINGS, THE MATTER/ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION SHALL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES AS UNDER : JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS. 124. (1) WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION OVER ANY AREA, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, HE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION (A) IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON A BUSINES S OR PROFESSION, IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIES ON HIS BUSINESS OR ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 13 PROFESSION IS SITUATE WITHIN THE AREA, OR WHERE HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, I F THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SI TUATE WITHIN THE AREA, AND (B) IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE AREA. (2) WHERE A QUESTION ARISES UNDER THIS SECTION AS T O WHETHER AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PE RSON, THE QUESTION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER; OR WHERE THE QUES TION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFER ENT DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIR ECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED O R, IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, BY THE BOARD OR BY SUCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY N OTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY. (3) NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER (A) WHERE HE HAS MADE A RETURN 21[UNDER SUB-SECTIO N (1) OF SECTION 115WD OR] UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE W AS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR 21[SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115WE OR] SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVE R IS EARLIER; (B) WHERE HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EX PIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER 22[SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115WD OR SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR UNDER SU B-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 115WH OR UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE M AKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 115WF OR UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 144] TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE B EST OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICHEVER IS EAR LIER. (4) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3), W HERE AN ASSESSEE CALLS IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 14 CLAIM, REFER THE MATTER FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SUB -SECTION (2) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE. (5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECT ION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS CONFERRED BY OR UNDER THI S ACT ON AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE AREA, IF ANY, OVER WHICH HE HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120. 6.2 ON READING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 (2) OF THE IT ACT ABOVE, THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE PERSON SHALL BE DETERMIN ED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER OR IN OTHER CASES, BY THE BOARD AND SUB-SEC.(4) OF SECTION 124 PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE QUE STIONED THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO AS PER SECTION 124(3), THEN THE AO SHALL, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, REFER THE MATTER FOR DET ERMINATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE, I.E., THE QUESTION T O BE REFERRED TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CCIT, CIT OR THE BOARD, AS THE CASE MAY BE . IN THIS CASE, THE AO WAS SATISFIED THAT SINCE SHRI SAMPOORNANAND ACIT(HQ./AD MN.) HAS BEEN ASSIGNED CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF HIS CIRCL E AS PER THE JURISDICTIONAL ORDER PASSED BY CIT-II AND ADDL. CIT RANGE-IV. THEREFORE, HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INCORRECT CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF ACIT, WHO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. HONBLE ALLAHAB AD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN TRANSPORT CO. VS. IAC OF INCOME-TAX REPOR TED IN (1991) 189 ITR 326, CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS TO THE JURISDICTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 15 OBJECTION CANNOT BE RAISED AFTER THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1985-86 AND HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 OF THE IT ACT CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING POINTS : (I). WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE POWER OF TRANSFER C ONFERRED BY THE ACT ? AND (II). HOW THE ACT ITSELF VIEWS A DEFECT OF THE NATU RE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE ? 6.3 WE MAY MENTION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 24 AS WERE APPLICABLE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1985-86 ARE ALMOST SIMILAR TO THE P ROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 124 OF THE IT ACT AFTER AMENDMENT, WHICH ARE APPLIC ABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD (PAGE 33 1) BEING AN ENACTMENT AIMED AT COLLECTING REVENUE, THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT INTEND COLLECTION OF REVENUE TO BE BOGGED DOWN ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL PLEA OF JURISDICTION. IT HAS, THEREFORE, PRESCRIBED THE LIMIT UP TO WHICH THE PLEA OF JURISDICTION MAY BE RAISED. AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 124(5)(A), THE RIGHT IS LOST AS SOON AS THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. EVEN WHERE THE RIGHT IS EXERCISED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED, THE QUESTION IS TO BE DECIDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OR BY THE BOARD. COURTS DO NOT COM E INTO THE PICTURE. FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IT IS APPARE NT THAT THE ACT DOES NOT TREAT THE ALLOCATION OF FUNCTIONS TO VARIO US AUTHORITIES OR OFFICERS AS ONE OF SUBSTANCE. IT TREATS THE MATTER AS ONE OF PROCEDURE AND A DEFECT OF PROCEDURE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE E ND ACTION. THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS THAT TH E POWER IS ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL AND IS TO BE EXERCISE D IN THE INTEREST OF EXIGENCIES OF TAX COLLECTION AND THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION IS ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 16 THAT, UNDER THE ACT, A DEFECT ARISING FROM ALLOCATI ON OF FUNCTIONS IS A MERE IRREGULARITY WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT THE RESULTA NT ACTION. 6.4 THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF TRIVENI EN GINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT, 280 ITR (AT) 210 (DELHI), FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 6.5 THE JUDICIAL DICTIONARY, 13 TH EDITION (K.J. AYER), BUTTERWORTHS INDIA, PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF CONCURRENT AS ACTING I N CONJUNCTION, AGREEING IN THE SAME ACT, CONTRIBUTING TO THE SAME EVENT, CONTEMPOR ANEOUS. THE WORD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION MEANS THE JURISDICTION OF SEVERAL COU RTS BOTH AUTHORIZED TO DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER AT THE CHOICE OF THE SUITOR. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE CIT-II WHILE PASSING THE JURISDICTIONAL OR DER U/S. 120 OF THE IT ACT ASSIGNED CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN FAVOUR OF SHRI SAMPOORNANAND, ACIT, WHO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF AS SESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE CASES FALLING IN THE JURISDICTION OF AO, CIRCLE 4(1), AGR A TO WHICH CIRCLE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FALLS. HE WAS ASSIGNED THIS POWER AND JURISDICTION IN ADDITION TO THE WORK ALREADY ALLOTTED TO HIM. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO ASSIGN SPECIFIC WORK TO HIM ALSO. THE AFORESAID JURISDICTI ON ORDER DATED 21.01.2004 WAS PASSED WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND UNTIL FURTHER ORDE RS AS NOTED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION VESTED IN SHRI SAMPOORNANAND WAS WITHDRAWN BY CIT CONCERNE D ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 17 NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, SHRI SAMP OORNANAND HAVING BEEN AUTHORIZED TO DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER WAS VEST ED WITH THE JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THE MATTER IN ISSUE. SINCE HE FOUND THAT INCOM E ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEALS WHILE SCRUTINIZING TH E RETURN OF ASSESSEE FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THEREFORE, HE H AS RIGHTLY EXERCISED JURISDICTION U/S. 148 OF THE ACT FOR REOPENING OF A SSESSMENT U/S. 148. THIS FACT IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT BEFORE ISSUING NOTI CE U/S. 148, HE HAD OBTAINED APPROVAL OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE IV, AGRA, OTHERWISE. I F SHRI SAMPOORNANAND, ACIT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE O N THE DATE OF APPROVAL, THE LD. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, WOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED HIM APPROV AL. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CIRCLE 4(3) PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER LA TER ON AND SHRI SAMPOORNANAND, ACIT WERE HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION AND WERE E XERCISING THEIR JURISDICTION UNDER THE SAME ADDL. CIT, RANGE IV, AGRA AND ONE OF THEM PROPERLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, WE DO NOT FIND IF ANY PREJUDIC E IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS WAY. 6.6 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SHRI SAMPOORNANAND, ACIT WAS HAVING JURISDICTION TO ISSU E NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT EVEN IF THE AS SESSEE RAISED THE OBJECTION ABOUT THE JURISDICTION OF AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, SUC H A QUESTION WAS TO BE DECIDED BY THE CIT, CCIT OR THE BOARD, AS THE CASE MAY BE A ND THE COURTS WOULD NOT COME ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 18 INTO PICTURE AS PER SECTION 124(2) OF THE IT ACT. T HE LD. CIT(A), WAS, THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR AL L THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS, THEREFORE, NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ORDER OF AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/ S. OM PRAKASH AGARWAL AND OTHERS (SUPRA) HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE ABOVE RELEVAN T PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASID E THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEALS ON MERITS, THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHALL HAVE TO GO BACK TO HIM FOR DECIDING THE APPEA LS ON MERITS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ANNULLING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AND RESTOR E THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE ALL THE THREE APP EALS ON MERITS ON ALL POINTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON ALL SUBMISSIONS RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM OTHER THAN JURISDICTION OF THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL G IVE REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ON QUANTUM ARE ALLOWED. 7. SO FAR AS THE DEPARTMENTAL PENALTY APPEALS ARE C ONCERNED, WE FIND THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) ANNULLED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, ITA NOS. 471 TO 476/AGRA/2011 19 THEREFORE, HE HAS CANCELLED THE PENALTIES U/S. 271( 1)(C) OF THE IT ACT WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDINGS ON MERITS. SINCE, WE HAVE SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON QUANTUM AND DECIDED THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IN FA VOUR OF THE REVENUE, THE MATTER ON MERITS IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A), TH EREFORE, THE ORDERS ON PENALTIES ARE ALSO SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTY APPEALS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE ALL THE PENALTY APPEALS ON MERI TS BY GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE AND THE AO. ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS RELATING TO PENALTY ARE, ACCOR DINGLY, ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AR E ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY FIT FOR PUBLICATION (AM) (JM)