Sh. Nirmal Singh S/o Sh. Lachhman Singh, Kapurthala V. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 588/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3282 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K CONDAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Application of stay; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 588/ASR/2016 & S.A. NO. 13/ASR /2016 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 NIRMAL SINGH S/O LACHHMAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE KESARPUR, P.O. SANDHU CHATHA, KALASANGHIAN, DISTT. KAPURTHALA [PAN: AJOPS 5768G] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD IV(1), JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. S. K. CONDAL (C.A.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 08.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.06.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE ORD ER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, JALANDHAR ('CIT(A)' FOR SHORT) DATED 07.09.2016, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING HIS ASS ESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) DA TED 20.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. 2. THOUGH THE APPEAL RAISES AS MANY AS FIVE GROUNDS , THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, PREFER RED TO ARGUE ONLY ON THE LEGAL ISSUE BEING RAISED PER GROUND 1 READING AS UNDER: ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 2 1. ON FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTI ON BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AS A CONDI TION STIPULATED FOR FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. MOREOVER, THE ADDRE SS OF THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT COMES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF INCOME TAX OFFICER AT KAP URTHALA AND NEITHER THE I.T.O. II(3). JALANDHAR NOR THE I.T.O. WARD IV(1), JALANDHAR HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, DURING THE WHOLE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE PAN OF THE APPELLANT WAS LYING WITH THE ITO MOGA. THE ASSESSEE THEREBY QUESTIONS THE JURISDICTION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICERS (ITOS) AT JALANDHAR OVER HIM, I.E., AS THE ASSESSING OFFIC ERS (AOS). THE FACTS 3. THE FACTS IN-SO-FAR AS ARE RELEVANT ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-INDIVIDUAL RETURNED HIS INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR ON 15.08.2009 WITH RANGE IV, JALANDHAR, I.E., ON THE BASIS OF HIS ADDRESS AT BHAGWANPUR, NAKODAR ROA D, JALANDHAR. THE RETURN BEING SELECTED UNDER THE COMPUTER AIDED SCRUTINY SELECTIO N (CASS), NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 15.09.2010 BY ITO, WARD II (3), JALANDHAR FOR 20.09.2010. THOUGH THE NOTICE, AS FAIRLY CONCEDED TO BY THE LD. AR, WAS SERVED IN TIME, AS NONE REPRESENTED, ANOTHER NOTICE U/S. 143(2), ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S. 142(1), WAS ISSUED BY THE SAME OFFICER ON 21.09.2010, AGAIN, AT THE BU SINESS ADDRESS, SERVICE OF WHICH IN TIME IS AGAIN NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE OBJEC TED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 21.01.2 011, I.E., UPON RECEIPT OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.01.2011 THERE-FROM SEEKING C ERTAIN DETAILS, MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE NOTICE DATED 21.09.2010 (PB PGS. 3 , 4). THE ITO (WARD II (3), JALANDHAR) TRANSFERRED THE ASSESSEES RETURN TO ITO , WARD IV(2), JALANDHAR (FALLING, AGAIN, IN RANGE IV, JALANDHAR) ON 20.12.2011 (PB PG . 5). THE AO (ITO, WARD IV(1), JALANDHAR), WHILE DISPOSING THE ASSESSEES O BJECTION TO HIS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS, HOLDS THE SAME AS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE J URISDICTION AS PER THE ASSESSEES PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN) WAS LYING WITH ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR, SO THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) BY HIM WAS VAL ID. SIMILARLY, THE LD. CIT(A) ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 3 OBSERVES THAT THE RETURN BEING SELECTED FOR BEING S UBJECT TO THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURE UNDER THE ACT, ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2 ) ON THE BASIS OF ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE APPLICANT IN HIS PAN RECORD, I.E., BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAID ADDRESS, IS VALID (REFER PARA 2/PAGE 2 AND PARAS 4.2 TO 4.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER RESPECTIVE LY). THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF THE ASSESSEES RETURN TO ITO, WARD IV(1), JALANDHAR IS STATED TO BE OCCASIONED BY THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSESSEES PAN THERETO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE RESPECTIVE CASES 4.1 BOTH THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE FOUND THE N OTICE U/S. 143(2) DATED 15.09.2010 (AS ALSO THAT DATED 21.09.2010), BOTH SE RVED BY 30.09.2010, AS ADMITTED BY THE COUNSEL, SH. S. K. CONDAL DURING HEARING, AS VALID, AS THE ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR WAS THE ASSESSEES AO ON THE BASIS OF THE OFFICE ADDRESS SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PAN RECORD. TOWARD THIS, AS EXPLAIN ED BY SH. CONDAL, THE ADDRESS STATED IN THE PAN IS THE SAME AS THAT FURNISHED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH STANDS, AS PER THE AO CODE, FURNISHED WITH ITO, WAR D IV(1), JALANDHAR . FURTHER, EVEN BY THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS STATED IN THE PAN C ORE DETAILS ( FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING HEARING ), THE JURISDICTION FALLS WITH ITO, KAPURTHALA. HOW , THEN, IT WAS ARGUED BY HIM, COULD IT BE SAID, AS DOES THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A), THAT ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR HAD THE JURISDICTION TO ASSES S AND, THUS, ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT TIME? THERE HAS BEEN, IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY HIM, NO CHANGE IN BOTH THE ASSESSEES OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AS STATED IN THE PAN, SINCE. THE REVENUES CASE BEFORE US WAS THAT, IN TERMS OF SECTION 124(3), THE ASSESSEE COULD QUESTION THE AOS JURISDICTION ONLY WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2), WHILE THE SAME WAS ADMITTEDL Y ONLY MUCH LATER, I.E., ON ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 4 21.01.2011. THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION IS, THUS, NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSESSEES CASE BY ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR TO IT O, WARD IV(1), JALANDHAR WAS DUE TO THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSESSEES PAN A PROCE SS INTERNAL TO THE DEPARTMENT, (2) AND WOULD, IN ANY CASE, NOT OPERATE TO INVALIDA TE THE NOTICES ISSUED ON 15.09.2010 AND 21.09.2010. THE ASSESSEE COUNTERS TH IS BY STATING THAT THE VERY FACT THAT THE RETURN WAS, ON HIS OBJECTION, TRANSFERRED BY ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR TO ITO, WARD IV(1), JALANDHAR, VALIDATES HIS OBJECTION , EVEN IF BELATED AND, FURTHER, THAT THEREFORE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATE 15.09.2010 (AND DATED 21.09.2010) BY HIM WAS (WERE) WITHOUT JURISDICTION. AFTER ALL, THE TERM ASSESSING OFFICER IN SECTION 143(2) WOULD ONLY MEAN THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AS DEFINED U/S. 2(7A) OF THE ACT, AND WHICH CLEARLY SPECIFIES THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VESTED WITH THE RELEVANT JURISD ICTION BY VIRTUE OF DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED U/S. 120(1) OR S. 120(2) OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT. THE ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR WAS NOT VESTED WITH THE JURIS DICTION TO ASSESS THE ASSESSEE, I.E., ON THE BASIS OF TERRITORIAL AREA, EITHER AS P ER THE BUSINESS OR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. THE ISSUE OF NOTICE/S U/S. 143(2) BY HIM IS, THUS, NON EST AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) PURSUANT THERETO, VOID AB INITIO . 4.2 WE MAY AT THIS STAGE ADVERT TO THE LAW IN THE M ATTER, I.E., AS EXPLAINED BY THE HIGHER COURTS OF LAW. THE EXPRESSION ASSESSING OFF ICER IN SECTION 2(7A) IS NOT CONFINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE REGULA R ASSESSMENT BUT INCLUDES ALL THE AUTHORITIES MENTIONED IN THIS CLAUSE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER (AO) IS THE AUTHORITY WHO INITIATES THE ASSESSMENT. HE RECEIVES RETURNS FROM THE ASSESSEES WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION AND MAKES ASSESSMENTS UNDER CHAPTER XIV OF THE ACT. AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ASSESSMENT BY HIM AND AGAINST SEV ERAL OF HIS OTHER ORDERS AND DECISIONS LIES TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) (SECTION 246/246A). OF COURSE, ONLY ONE AO CAN HAVE REGULAR JURISDICTIO N OVER AN ASSESSEE AT ANY GIVEN ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 5 POINT OF TIME, AND ON TRANSFER THE OFFICER TO WHOM THE FILE IS TRANSFERRED CAN MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ( AHAMMED P.A. V. CCIT [2006] 282 ITR 334 (KER)). AN IRREGULAR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION, LIKE NOT FOLLOWING THE PR INCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ORDER IS A NULLITY. SUCH AN ORDER CAN BE SET ASIDE ( CIT V. BHARAT KUMAR MODI [2000] 246 ITR 693 (BOM); AREVA T & D INDIA LTD. V. ASST. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 233 (MAD)). FURTHER, SECTION 139A(5) OF THE ACT MAKES IT OBLIGATORY FOR EVERY PERSON TO INTIMATE EVERY CHANG E IN HIS ADDRESS TO THE REVENUE. THERE IS, THEREFORE, NOTHING AMISS IN THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION U/S. 120 ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDRESS SO COMMUNICATED IN ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2), PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT THE SAID NOTICE STANDS ISSUED ON T HE BASIS OF CASS, I.E., UPON THE INFORMATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING ENTERED INTO SOM E TRANSACTION/S THAT CAME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR VERIFICATIO N OF THE RETURNS. THIS IS AS THE SAME IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDRESS SPECIFIED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN HIS PAN RECORD, AS UPDATED FROM TIME TO TIME, ON THE BASIS OF THE COMM UNICATION/S RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RESPECT, I.E., U/S. 139A(5), WHICH IS AVAILABLE WITH THE CENTRAL REGISTRY OF THE REVENUE. THERE IS NO OTHER BASIS FOR THE ITO , WARD II(3), JALANDHAR FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ON 15.09.2010, WHICH STA NDS ADMITTEDLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE IN TIME (I.E., BY 30.09.2010). THE ASSESSE E HOWEVER DISPUTES THE JURISDICTION OF THE ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR ON T HE BASIS OF HIS BUSINESS ADDRESS AS STATED IN THE PAN RECORD ITSELF. WHETHER, THEREF ORE, ITO WARD II(3), JALANDHAR HAD THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF HIS LATEST ADDRESSES WITH THE REVENUE IS A MATTER OF RECORD AND RELEVANT NOTIFICA TION BY THE BOARD U/S. 120. (3) WHY, THE ASSESSEE STATES OF ITO, MOGA (OR ITO, KAPU RTHALA) AS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER HIM (REFER GD. 1), THOUGH FILES HIS RETURN WIT H ITO, WARD IV(1), JALANDHAR, I.E., AS PER THE BUSINESS ADDRESS, EVEN AS HE STATE S OF NO CHANGE IN HIS ADDRESS WITH REFERENCE TO THAT STATED IN HIS PAN RECORD, I.E., I S MUTUALLY CONTRARY. THE MATTER WOULD NEED TO ACCORDINGLY TRAVEL TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE. IF THE ITO, ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 6 WARD II(3), JALANDHAR HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASS ESSEE WHO CLAIMS OF NO CHANGE IN HIS ADDRESS, I.E., AS THE STATED IN HIS PAN RECO RD AS WELL AS THE RETURN OF INCOME, AT THE RELEVANT TIME (15.09.2010), THERE IS NO QUES TION OF THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ISSUED BY HIM BEING INVALID ON THE GROUND OF JURISD ICTION. ELSE, PERHAPS, IT MAY NOT BE SO IN-AS-MUCH AS THERE CAN CLEARLY BE NO ASSUMPT ION OF JURISDICTION ON THE BASIS OF ACQUIESCENCE. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO EXAMINE THE SCHEME OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO JURISDICTION OF THE INCOME TAX A UTHORITIES. THE HEADING OF CHAPTER XIII OF THE ACT IS INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES . THE SAID CHAPTER HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO FOUR PARTS: A, B, C & D. PART B BEARS THE TITLE JURISDICTION. SECTIONS 120 TO 130A FALL IN THIS PART. THE MATERIAL SECTION FOR OUR PURPOSES IS SECTION 124, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 124. JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS (1) WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED U NDER 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 JURIS DICTION- (A) IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIES ON HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS S ITUATE WITHIN THE AREA, OR WHERE HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PL ACES THAN ONE, IF THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE WITH IN THE AREA, AND (B) IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE AREA. (2) WHERE A QUESTION ARISES UNDER THIS SECTION AS TO W HETHER AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON, THE QUESTION SHA LL BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSION ER; OR WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFER ENT DIRECTORS GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS, BY THE DIRECTORS GE NERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED OR, IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGRE EMENT, BY THE BOARD OR BY SUCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIO NER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY. (3) NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION TH E JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER- (A) WHERE HE HAS MADE A RETURN UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS S ERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 7 (B) WHERE HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR UNDE R SECTION 148 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE 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 EARLIER. (4) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (3), WHE RE AN ASSESSEE CALLS IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SHALL, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM, REFER THE MATTER FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE. (5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HA VE ALL THE POWERS CONFERRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT ON AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT O F THE INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE AREA, IF ANY, OVER WHICH HE HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTI ON (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120. SUB-SECTION (4) OF SEC. 124 PROVIDES THAT, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-S. (3), WHERE AN ASSESSEE CALLS IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTIO N OF AN AO, THEN THE AO, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM, SHALL REFER THE MATTER FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SUB-S. (2) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE. SUB -S. (2) OF S. 124 STATES THAT WHERE A QUESTION ARISES WITH REGARD TO THE JURISDI CTION OF AO, THE QUESTION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE CHIEF CIT OR THE CIT. SUB-S. (3) PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL I N QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN AO UNLESS THE SAID OBJECTION IS RAISED BY HIM BEFOR E THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE IS SERVED WITH A NOTICE, INTER ALIA , U/S. 143(2), OR THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. AND WHERE NO RETURN IS FILED, WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE SPECIFIED NOTICES FO R FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, OR THE TIME ALLOWED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT S HOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT BY THE AO, WHICHEVER IS EARLIE R. ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 8 CASE LAW A SYNOPSIS WE MAY NEXT EXAMINE THE CASE LAW IN THE MATTER. UNLIKE THE 1922 ACT WHICH REFERRED TO THE PLACE OF ASSESSMENT, SECTION 124 REFERS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO ( DHRANGADHAR TRADING CO. (P.) LTD. VS. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 674, 679-680 (GUJ)). IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD JURISDICTION IS USED IN THIS CONTEXT. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WANT OF INHER ENT JURISDICTION, I.E., INHERENT INCOMPETENCY, ON THE ONE HAND, AND IRREGULAR EXERCI SE OR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION ON THE OTHER HAND, IS WELL SETTLED ( SITARAM RATHORE V. CIT [1994] 77 TAXMAN 265 (MP); GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. VS. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 457 (CAL)). A PARTY MAY WAIVE OBJECTION TO IRREGULAR EXERCISE OR ASSUMPTION OF JU RISDICTION; BUT THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF WAIVER WHERE THERE IS A WANT OF INHEREN T JURISDICTION BECAUSE IN SUCH A CASE THE ORDER MUST BE TREATED AS A NULLITY ( KISTOOR MALL V. ITO [1983] 140 ITR 95, 103-105 (RAJ); K.K. LOOMBA VS. CIT AND ORS. [2000] 241 ITR 152 (DEL); RECKITT V. ASST CIT [2001] 252 ITR 550 (CAL); BR INDUSTRIES V. CIT [ 2002] 255 ITR 593 (DEL)). UNDER THE ACT, IF AN ORDER IS MADE BY AN AO OTHER THAN THE ONE ENTITLED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION, IT MAY AMOUNT MERELY TO IRRE GULAR EXERCISE OR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION; AND IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY SUB- S(3), HE WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED HIS OBJECTI ON AND THE ORDER WOULD BE VALID AND EFFECTIVE ( RAJA BAHADUR KAMAKHYA NARAIN SINGH V. UNION OF INDI A [1964] 51 ITR 596, 604-605 (PAT)); RAM CHANDRA SANKHLA V. CIT [1995] 127 CTR 179 (RAJ)). IF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER TRANSFERRING A CASE FROM ONE AO TO ANOTHER IS SET ASIDE BY THE COURT, THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY INVALIDATE ALL ACTION TAKEN, BEFORE THE COURTS DECISION, BY THE AO TO WHOM THE CASE WA S TRANSFERRED ( RAJA BAHADUR KAMAKSHYA NARAIN SINGH VS. ITO [1969] 74 ITR 563 (PAT)). AN OBJECTION TO THE AOS JURISDICTION SHOULD BE RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AND BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED UN DER SUB-S (3), WHICH ENSURES ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 9 THAT THE OBJECTION IS RAISED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED ( INDRA & CO. VS. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 466 (RAJ); BHUPINDRA FOOD & MALT INDUSTRIES V. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 496 (HP); CIT V. ALL INDIA CHILDREN CARE AND EDUCATIONAL DEVE LOPMENT SOCIETY [2014] 357 ITR 134 (ALL)). WHERE THE OBJECTION IS SENT BY POST, IT MUST REACH THE AO WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD ( VISHWANATH GOPAL OIL MILL VS. S.C.PRASHAR [1957] 32 ITR 344 (BOM)). THE ASSESSEE MAY CALL IN QUESTION THE AOS JURISDICTION ON ANY GROUND. FOR EXAMPLE, HE MA Y CALL IT IN QUESTION ON THE GROUND THAT HAVING REGARD TO AN ORDER OF TRANSFER O F THE CASE OR AN ORDER ALLOCATING WORK TO DIFFERENT AOS, ANOTHER AO IN THE SAME AREA HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE, OR ON THE GROUND THAT HAVING REGAR D TO THE ASSESSEES PLACE OF BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE, THE AO OF ANOTHER AREA HAS J URISDICTION OVER HIS CASE UNDER SUB-S(1) ( SOHANI DEVI JAIN VS. ITO [1977] 109 ITR 130 (140,150) (GAU)(FB)). UNLIKE THIS SECTION, S.64(3) OF THE 1922 ACT APPLIE D ONLY WHEN A QUESTION AROSE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE MADE AT ONE PLA CE OR ANOTHER, AND NOT WHEN THE QUESTION WAS AS TO WHICH OF TWO AOS FUNCTIONING AT THE SAME PLACE AS ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR AND ITO, WARD IV(1), JALANDHA R, IN THE PRESENT CASE, SHOULD MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ( BALDEV SINGH VS. CIT [1960] 40 ITR 605, 610 (SC ) ; TARAK NATH BAGCHI VS. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 319 (CAL); RE BISHESHWAR NATH & CO . [1942] 10 ITR 103 (ALL)). IF THE QUESTION AS TO JURISDICTION HAS BEEN RAISED IN TIME BEFORE THE AO AND HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DIRECT OR GENERAL OR THE COMMISSIONER OR BY THE BOARD, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RAISE THE OBJE CTION AGAIN IN AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), FOR S.246 DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AN APPEA L ON THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION AND, SECONDLY, UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT THE CIT( A), CANNOT SIT IN APPEAL OVER THE DECISION OF THOSE AUTHORITIES ( UDAIPUR DISTILLERY CO. VS. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 516 (RAJ); SETH KANHAIYA LAL, IN RE [1941] 9 ITR 25 (ALL)). THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER AN AO HAS JURISDICTION WITHIN THIS SECTION TO ASS ESS ANY PERSON CANNOT BE THE ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 10 SUBJECT-MATTER OF APPEAL THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT COMPETENT TO DECIDE THE QUESTION AS TO THE AOS JURISDICTION. SUCH A QUESTI ON IS TO BE DECIDED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE COMMISSIONER OR THE BOARD. IN SUM 4.3 IN WALLACE BROS. & CO. LTD. [1945] 13 ITR 39 (FC), THE FEDERAL COURT HELD THAT THE OBJECTION TO THE PLACE OF THE ASSESSMENT C OULD NOT BE RAISED UNDER THE 1922 ACT ON AN APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT. THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED BY RAI BAHADUR SETH TEOMAL V. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 9 (SC) IN WHICH THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE OBJECTION TO THE PLACE OF ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE RAISED UNDER THE 1922 ACT IN APPEAL OR REFERENCE PROCEEDINGS. THE DE CISION IN TEOMALS CASE (SUPRA) HOLDS GOODS UNDER THE ACT. ALTHOUGH THE OBSERVATION S BY THE FEDERAL COURT IN WALLACE BROS. & CO. LTD. (SUPRA), THAT THE MATTER IS MORE OF AN ADMINISTRAT IVE CONVENIENCE THAN OF JURISDICTION, WOULD NOT APPLY U NDER THE ACT WHEN THE STATUTE ITSELF REFERS TO THE MATTER AS ONE OF JURISDICTION, THE QUESTION OF AOS JURISDICTION IS STILL LEFT TO BE DECIDED, AS UNDER THE 1922 ACT, BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR COMMISSIONER OR BOARD AND NOT BY THE APPELLANT AUTH ORITIES OR BY THE COURTS ON REFERENCE. THAT IS, THE MATTER IS LEFT TO BE DECIDE D BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE, EVEN AS CLARIFIED, ONCE AGAIN, BY THE HON'BLE COURT IN CIT V. BRITISH INDIA CORPORATION LTD. [2011] 337 ITR 64 (ALL) REFERRING TO DECISIONS BY THE APEX COURT, INCLUDING TEOMAL (SUPRA) AND WALLACE BROS. & CO. LTD. (SUPRA), AS WELL AS ITS EARLIER DECISION IN HINDUSTAN TRANSPORT CO. V. IAC [1991] 189 ITR 326 (ALL). THE SAID VIEW STANDS REITERATED RECENTLY IN CIT V. SHRI SHYAM SUNDER INFRASTRUCTURE (P.) LTD . [2015] 92 CCH 33 (DEL). THE ISSUE ARISING IS THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE U/S . 143(2) DATED 15.09.2010, ADMITTEDLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY 30.09.2010 I.E ., THE LAST DATE BY WHICH IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON HIM FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION TO SUBJECT THE ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 11 ASSESSEES RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR TO THE VERI FICATION PROCEDURE UNDER THE ACT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY BEEN SERVED AN OTHER NOTICE U/S. 143(2) (DATED 21.09.2010 AND AGAINST WHICH OBJECTION IN FACT ST ANDS RAISED) BY THAT DATE. WE PROCEED FURTHER ASSUMING THAT THIS WOULD NOT MATERI ALLY ALTER THE ISSUE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE SAME STANDS ALSO ISSUED BY ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR. THE ASSESSEE IMPUGNS THE SAID NOTICE ON THE GROUND OF THE COMPET ENCY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER [ITO, WARD-II(3), JALANDHAR] IN ISSUING THE SAME AN D, THUS, FRAME THE ASSESSMENT. WE OBSERVE A COMPLETE UNANIMITY OF JUDICIAL OPINION IN THE MATTER, EVEN AS APPARENT FROM THE SEVERAL CASE LAW, DELIVERED IN DIFFERENT FACT-SITUATIONS, BY DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AS NOTED ABOVE (PARA 4.2 OF THIS ORDER). IT IS NOT, IT MAY BE NOTED, THE INHERENT COMPETENCE OR THE POWER OF THE AUTHORITY ACTING AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, I.E., ITO, WARD II (3), JALANDHAR TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OR MAKE AN ASSESSMENT, BUT ON ACCOUNT O F HE BEING ASSIGNED THE JURISDICTION OVER AREAS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEES ADD RESS PURPORTEDLY DOES NOT FALL, I.E., HIS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, THAT IS UNDER C HALLENGE; THE INHERENT COMPETENCE FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE OR FRAMING AN ASSESSMENT BEING T HE SAME AS THAT OF (SAY) ITO, WARD IV(1), JALANDHAR (WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE STATE S TO HAVE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME), OR ITO, KAPURTHALA FOR THAT MATTER. THE AS SESSEE HAS RELIED ON SEVERAL DECISIONS BY THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE ASSESSMENT ST ANDS CANCELLED FOR WANT OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, I.E., IN TERMS OF SECTION 120. THE SAID DECISIONS ARE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AS NOTICED HER EINABOVE. WHY, WE FIND IN THE COMPILATION ORDERS BY THE TRIBUNAL FALLING WITHIN T HE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURTS, DECISIONS BY WHOM STAND NOTED BY US, SO THA T THE SAME ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE BINDING PRECEDENTS. THE MATTER, AS WOULD B E APPARENT FROM THE FORE-GOING, IS WELL SETTLED AND, FURTHER, HAS THE BLESSING OF T HE HON'BLE APEX COURT, WHOSE DECISIONS STAND REFERRED TO AND FOLLOWED IN PRINCIP LE BY THE HON'BLE COURTS. THE RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS BY TRIBUNAL WOULD THEREFO RE BE OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE. IT IS ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 12 RATHER UNFORTUNATE THAT THE REVENUE DID NOT BRING T O OUR NOTICE THE SAID DECISIONS AND, THUS, BRING HOME THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW I N THE MATTER DURING HEARING. CONCLUSION 5. THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 143( 2) DATED 21.09.2010 ON THE GROUND OF ITS ISSUE BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER NOT HAV ING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS HIM IN TERMS OF THE TERRITORIAL AREA ASSIGNED TO HIM U/S. 120, WAS, ON EXAMINATION, FOUND TO CONTAIN TWO ASPECTS, I.E., ONE FACTUAL AND THE OTHE R LEGAL. ON FACTS, IN VIEW OF THE CONTRARY CLAIMS, I.E., BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) ON ONE SIDE, AND THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER, BOTH BASING THEIR CASE ON THE ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR WHO ISSUED THE RELEVANT NOTICES U/S. 143(2) (DATED 15.09.2010 AND 21.09.2010), TO BE HAVING OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, NOT HAVING JURISDICTION ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSEES OFFICE ADDRESS, WOULD HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY RESOLVED WITH REFERENCE TO THE RELEVANT NOTIFICATION U/S. 120, WITH WE FURTHER OBSERVING TH AT THE BURDEN TO COMMUNICATE ITS LATEST ADDRESS TO THE REVENUE, IN VIEW OF SECTION 1 39A(5), IS ON THE ASSESSEE, SO THAT THE REVENUE CAN PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF THE AS SESSEES LATEST ADDRESS AVAILABLE WITH IT. IN FACT, STRICTLY SPEAKING, AS INDEED OUGH T TO BE THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT OBJECTED TO THE FIRST NOTICE U/S. 143(2) , I.E., DATED 15.09.2010, SERVED IN TIME, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THEREFORE THE JURISDICT ION TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) GETS ASSUMED, THE OBJECTION TO THE SUBSEQUEN T NOTICE U/S. 143(2) (DATED 21.09.2010) IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. THE ASSESSEES CA SE THUS GETS OUSTED AT THE THRESHOLD. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE LEGAL POSITION, WITHOUT P REJUDICE, REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION, TO BE VALID AND MAINTAINABLE, HAD TO BE, IN VIEW OF SECTION 124(3), MADE BEFORE THE END OF ONE MONTH OF THE SER VICE OF THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2), WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY BY 30.09.2010, I.E., BY 31.10.2 010, AT THE LATEST. THE SAID ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 13 OBJECTION WAS HOWEVER RAISED BEFORE THE AO ONLY ON 21.01.2011 . THE LAW IN THE MATTER, UPON AN OVERVIEW OF THE CASE LAW ON THE SUB JECT, WAS FOUND TO BE WELL- SETTLED. THERE IS, AS A PERUSAL OF THE SEVERAL DECI SIONS AFORE-REFERRED REVEAL, NO VESTED RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BEING ASSESSED BY A PARTICULAR OFFICER, OR AT A PARTICULAR PLACE, SO THAT THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION IS NOT EVEN CONTEMPLATED BY LAW WHERE THERE IS A TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION U/S. 127 FROM ONE OFFICER TO ANOTHER IN THE SAME CITY. THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, AS PER THE SC HEME OF THE ACT, IS TO OBTAIN SUCH OBJECTION, IF ANY, FROM THE ASSESSEE AT THE EARLIES T POINT IN TIME, AND TO RESOLVE THE SAME THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANNEL, KEEPING IT OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE APPELLATE OR REFERENCE PROCEDURE. THE DECISION OF T HE DIRECTOR GENERAL/CHIEF COMMISSIONER/COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, T HE BOARD, - THE AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO IN SECTION 124(2), WE MAY THOUGH ADD, I S UNDER THE SCHEME OF THINGS TO BE FINAL. THE ONLY REMEDY, AS IT APPEARS, WHERE THE OBJECTION MADE IN TIME U/S. 124(3), IS NOT ADDRESSED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSEE, IS TO MOVE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT UNDER ITS WRIT JURISDICTI ON. THE WHOLE PURPORT OF LAW, AS WE SEE IT, IS FROM THE STANDPOINT AS TO WHETHER ANY PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSESSEES RETURN BY ITO, WARD II(3), JALANDHAR TO ANOTHER ITO (AT JALANDHAR, WHERE THE ASSESSEES OFF ICE IS LOCATE, AND IN FACT, THE ITO WITH WHOM HE FILED HIS RETURN) WOULD NOT MAKE T HE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) BY HIM ON 15.09.2010 (OR 21.09.2010) INVALID. THIS IS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE SAID TRANSFER IS PROMPTED BY THE ASSESSEES OBJECTI ON-AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, OR THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSESSEES PAN TO THE TRANSF EREE ITO, AS STATED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THERE IS NO CHALLENGE, NOR POSSIBLY COUL D BE, TO THE INHERENT COMPETENCE OF THE ITO, WARD II(3) JALANDHAR TO ISSU E A NOTICE U/S. 143(2), WHICH COMPETENCE IS IN FACT THE SAME AS THAT OF ANY OTHER ITO AT JALANDHAR OR KAPURTHALA. ONCE, THEREFORE, THERE IS A VALID ASSUMPTION OF JUR ISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3), BY SERVICE OF A VALID NOTICE U/S. 143( 2) IN TIME, THE PROCEEDINGS ARE TO ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 14 BE TAKEN TO THEIR LOGICAL CONCLUSION (REFER: GUDUTHUR BROS. V. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC)). THE ASSESSMENT BY THE ITO, WARD IV-(1), JALANDHAR, WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN, AND WHO RECEIVED THE ASS ESSEES RETURN FROM ITO, WARD II(3) JALANDHAR ON 21.07.2011, CANNOT THEREFORE BE FAULTED WITH. IN FACT, NO FURTHER OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WITH HE RATHE R PARTICIPATING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOW, THEN, COULD HE CHALLENGE THE JURI SDICTION OF THE ITO, WARD IV(1) JALANDHAR WITH WHOM HE HAS IN FACT FILED HI S RETURN FOR THE YEAR, AS HIS AO, IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . THE ISSUE OF NOTICES U/SS. 142(1) AND 143(2) BY I TO, WARD IV(1) JALANDHAR ON 21.07.2011 (PB PGS. 10, 11) IS AGAIN IN CONSONANCE WITH THE LAW WHICH CONTEMPLATES ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICES ON CHANGE OF INCUMBENCY OR SUCCESSION IN JURISDICTION. THE SAME IS ONLY AN ADM INISTRATIVE MECHANISM TO ACCORD WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WITH SECTIO N 129 EVEN GRANTING THE ASSESSEE THE RIGHT TO INSIST ON BEING REHEARD IN THE MATTER, I.E., TO THE EXTENT ALREADY HEARD BY THE PREVIOUS OFFICER/S. GIVEN THE FACTS AFORE-NOTED AND THE CLEAR POSITION OF LAW, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT RELEVANT TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF TH E AO FOR RESOLVING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION DATED 21.01.2011 THROUGH RECOURSE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS; THE SAID OBJECTION BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LAW, I.E., BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. IN FACT, EVEN WHERE MAINTAINABLE, THE QUESTION THAT WOULD ARISE I S IF THE TRIBUNAL COULD ISSUE SUCH A DIRECTION, GIVEN THE LAW THAT THE ISSUE OF NON AD DRESSING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION, OR NOT DOING SO TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSEE , IS BEYOND THE PALE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS; THE SAME, AS EXPLAINED BY TH E HIGHER COURTS, INCLUDING THE APEX COURT, BEING RELEGATED UNDER THE ACT TO THE AD MINISTRATIVE SIDE. THAT IS, THE SAME DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO AN APPEALABLE ISSUE. IT IS THIS THAT LED US TO STATE THAT THE PROPER RECOURSE PERHAPS MAY BE MOVE THE HONBLE HIG H COURT UNDER WRIT JURISDICTION. TWO, IN ANY CASE, AND WITHOUT PREJUDI CE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSMENT BEING ANNULLED OR DECLARED VOID AB INITO ; THE INHERENT COMPETENCE OF ITA NO. 588/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) NIRMAL SINGH V. ITO 15 THE AUTHORITY ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) FOR FR AMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) BEING NEITHER UNDER CHALLENGE NOR EVEN IN DOUBT. TH E MATTER COULD AT BEST BE SET ASIDE FOR MEETING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION, WHERE IN TIME , FOR BEING ADDRESSED AS CONTEMPLATED BY LAW. WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSAR Y TO DWELL ON THIS ASPECT FURTHER INASMUCH AS THE SAME DOES NOT ARISE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS, FURTHER, NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE BE FORE US OF LACK OF OPPORTUNITY BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DECIDING THE MATTE R, AS ALLEGED PER HIS GROUND OF APPEAL. IN FACT, NO SUCH PLEA IS RAISED QUA THE OTHER GROUNDS (ON THE MERITS OF THE QUANTUM ADJUSTMENTS MADE IN ASSESSMENT), WHICH THOU GH WERE NOT PRESSED DURING HEARING. NO ARGUMENT IN ITS RESPECT WAS ALSO MADE B EFORE US. WE HAVE IN FACT DECIDED THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED ON THE BASIS OF UNDI SPUTED FACTS AND THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEES GROUND 1 IS, IN VIEW OF THE FORE-GOI NG, WITHOUT MERIT, AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D, AND ITS STAY APPLICATION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 27, 2018 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 27.06.2018 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELANT NIRMAL SINGH S/O LACHHMAN SING H R/O VILLAGE KESARPUR, P.O. SANDHU CHATHA, KALASANGHIAN, DISTT. KAPURTHALA (2) THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD IV( 1), JALANDHAR (3) THE CIT(APPEALS)-2, JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED TRUE COPY (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T BY ORDER