Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar V. JCIT, Hisar

ITA 619/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5855 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; Audit objection; International transaction; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Competent authority; Right to appeal; Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 144C; 13; 153; 22; 92CA; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I-1, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 619/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010-11 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., DELHI ROAD, HISAR VS JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AA ACJ7097D ASSESSEE BY : SH. SALIL KAPOOR, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. SURENDERPAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 06 . 0 9 .20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 .0 9 .20 2 1 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2015 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 C R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. IS A PUBLIC LIMITE D COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SA LE OF STEEL, SPONGE IRON, FERRO CHROME, PIG IRON PARALLEL FLANGE BEAMS/COLUMNS, RAILS AND POWER GENERATION. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME WITH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR. THE RETURN WAS F ILED ON 30.09.2010 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 864,20,38,306 /-. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED RETURN O N 31/3/2011 ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 2 REVISING THE TOTAL INCOME TO RS.860,8,38,331/- THUS REDUCING TOTAL INCOME BY RS.4,11,99,975/-. 4. A REFERENCE WAS SENT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TPO TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE U/S 92CA ( 3) IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10, I.E. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) PASSED ORDER U/S 92CA (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 2 /1/2014 DETERMINING AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 72,10,14,45 3/-. IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER OF THE TPO, THE DRAFT ASSESS MENT ORDER WAS FRAMED BY THE AO ON 31/3/2014. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ON 29.4.2014. AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, TH E LD. DRP VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2014 HAS DISPOSED OFF THE OB JECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. TAKING INTO COGNIZANCE, THE DIRECTION S OF THE LD. DRP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 8/1/2015 U/S144C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. FACTS IN BRIEF: DATE OF FILING OF RETURN 30.09.2010 DATE OF ORDER OF THE TPO 02.01.2014 DATE OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER 03.01.2014 DATE OF FILING OBJECTIONS BEFORE DRP 29.04.2014 DATE OF ORDER OF THE DRP 31.12.2014 DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER 08.01.2015 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSE E FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE SAID ASS ESSMENT ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 3 ORDER INITIALLY ON VARIOUS ISSUES AS SET OUT IN GRO UNDS OF APPEAL FILED UNDER FORM NO.36B ON 20.05.2019. THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT NOT BEING DONE BY THE COMPETENT PERSO N. ON 12.07.2021, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FRESH ADDITI ONAL GROUNDS RELATING TO THE ISSUE THAT THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 144C(13)/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS BAD IN LAW, VOID AB-INITIO AND BARRED BY LIMITATION. 7. IN THE APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL UNDER RULE 11 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL RULES 1963, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UP THE JURISDICT IONAL GROUNDS OF TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT FROM DEPUTY COMMI SSIONER TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER AND THE ASSESSMENT BEING TIM E BARRED OWING TO WRONG APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS U/S 144C. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 4 ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 5 ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 6 ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 7 8. ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS HAS BEEN OPPOSED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE LD. DR. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING AVAIL ED THE BENEFICIAL PROVISION OF PRE-ADJUDICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE WAY OF LD. DRP AS PROVIDED U/S 144C CANNOT RAISE THE ISSUE IN THE F ORM OF ANY ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AT THE JUNCTURE. THE LD. AR ARGU ED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS BEING LEGAL IN NATURE CAN BE RAISED AT ANY POI NT OF TIME. KEEPING IN VIEW, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383, TH E ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS AS UNDER: 5. UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE A PPEAL AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DEALING WIT H APPEALS IS THUS EXPRESSED IN THE WIDEST POSSIBLE TERMS. THE PURPOSE O F THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TAXING AUTHORITIES I S TO ASSESS CORRECTLY THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, AS A RESULT OF A J UDICIAL DECISION GIVEN WHILE THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS FOUND THAT A NON-TAXABLE ITEM IS TAXE D OR A PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION IS DENIED, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASO N WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM RAISING THAT QUESTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO L ONG AS THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE ON RECORD IN RESPECT OF THAT ITEM. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO RESTRICT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNA L UNDER SECTION 254 ONLY TO DECIDE THE GROUNDS WHICH ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS). BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL/CROSS-OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. W E FAIL TO SEE WHY THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM CONSIDER ING QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISING IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED EARLIER. 6. IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. V. C .I.T . . THIS COURT, WHILE DEALING WITH THE POWERS OF THE APPELLAT E ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OBSERVED THAT AN APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY HAS ALL THE POWERS WHICH THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY MAY HA VE IN DECIDING THE QUESTION BEFORE IT SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTI ONS OR LIMITATIONS, IF ANY, PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTORY PROV ISIONS. IN ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 8 THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS VESTED WITH ALL THE PLENARY POWERS WHICH T HE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN THE MATTER. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO JUSTIFY CURTAILMENT OF THE POWER OF TH E APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN ENTERTAINING AN ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. THIS COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TH ERE MAY BE SEVERAL FACTORS JUSTIFYING THE RAISING OF A NEW P LEA IN AN APPEAL AND EACH CASE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN FACTS. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE GROUND RAISED WAS BONA FIDE AND THAT THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED EARLIER FOR GOOD REASON S. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHOULD EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION IN PERMITTING OR NOT PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE T O RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND REASON. THE SAME OBSERVATIONS WOULD APPLY TO APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO. 7. THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS CONFINED ONLY TO ISS UES ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) TAKES TOO NARROW A VIEW OF THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [VIDE, E.G., C.I.T, V. ANAND PRA SAD (DELHI), C.I.T . V. KARAMCHANDPREMCHAND P. LTD. AND C.I.T. V. CELLULOSE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD . . UNDOUBTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL WILL HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW OR NOT ALLOW A NEW GROUND TO BE RAISED. BUT WHERE THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM THE FACTS WHICH ARE ON RE CORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WE FAIL TO SEE WHY SUCH A QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION IN ORDER TO CORRECTLY ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. 8. THE REFRAMED QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS ANSWERED IN T HE AFFIRMATIVE, I.E., THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO EX AMINE A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH ARISES FROM THE FACTS AS FOUND BY TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVING A BEARING ON THE TAX LI ABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. WE REMAND THE PROCEEDINGS TO THE TRIBUNAL F OR CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE MERITS. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THA T THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FILED ON 8TH JULY, 2021 WITH REG ARD TO THE ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 9 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C MAY BE TAKEN UP INITIALL Y. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C WA S INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009 W.R.E.F . 01.04.2009, AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT APPLICA BLE FOR THE PRESENT/IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH IS A.Y. 2010 -11. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE RECENT DECISION OF THE HONB LE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF VEDANTA LTD. VS. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 262 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN OBSERVATIO N THAT, WHERE THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE FORM OF ASSESSMENT I TSELF SUCH CHANGE IS NOT A MERE DEPOSITION IN PROCEDURE BUT A SUBSTANTIVE SHIFT IN THE MANNER OF FRAMING ASSESSMENT. SUBSTANT IVE RIGHT WAS ENSURED TO THE PARTIES BY VIRTUE OF THE INTRODU CTION OF SECTION 144C AND IT IS SETTLED POSITION THAT THE LA W APPLICABLE ON THE FIRST DAY OF ASSESSMENT YEAR BE RECKONED AS APPLICABLE FOR THAT YEAR, LEADS ONE TO THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUS ION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C CAN BE HELD TO BE APPLIC ABLE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY, FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ONL Y. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF DEPUTY CIT VS. TRAVELPORT L.P USA IN ITA NO. 6499/D EL/2012 DATED 2/11/2020 AS WELL AS DECISION IN THE CASE OF A.T KEARNEY LTD. VS. ADIT IN ITA NO. 4405/DEL/2011 DATED 25/5/2 021. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTIFICATION/CIRC ULAR NO. 5/2010 ISSUED BY THE CBDT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY TH E HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF VEDANTA LTD. (SUPRA). THUS, IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR SECTION 144C IS NOT APPLICA BLE AND ORDER U/S 144C IS BAD IN LAW, VOID AB-INITIO AND BARRED BY LIMITATION AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE QUASHED AT THE THRESHOLD. ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 10 10. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 144C WAS INSE RTED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009, W.R.E.F. 1/4/2009 FOR WHI CH THE CAPTION WAS MENTIONED AS REFERENCE TO DISPUTE RESO LUTION PANEL. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED THE PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURE OF SECTION 144C BY FILING OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP AND THUS, HAS TAKEN THE BENEFIT OF S ECTION 144C AS PER THE STATUTE. THE LD. DR ALSO RELIED UPON TH E CIRCULAR NO.5/2010 DATED 3/6/2010 ISSUED BY CBDT WHICH CLEAR LY MENTIONED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL U/S 144C ARE APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 144C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 IS VALID ASSESSMENT AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE NOT VALID AND NOT AS PER THE LAW ESTABLISHED. THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE PROCEDURE MENTIONED UNDER REFERENC E TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL IS SACROSANCT AND NON NEG OTIABLE. IT WAS HELD THAT NON-ADHERENCE TO THE MANDATORY REQUIR EMENT U/S 144C WOULD NULLIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS ARG UED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAVE AT THE OUTSET RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE PROVISIONS OF REFERENCE TO LD. DRP AS ENUNCIATED U/S 144C. 11. HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. AR RELIED UPO N THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE O F VEDANTA LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS DATED 22ND OCTOBER, 20 19 WHICH IS NOW BEFORE US. THE MOOT QUESTIONS IN THIS APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL IS THAT WHETHER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 CO ME UNDER ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 11 THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 144C OR NOT AND WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT PASSED WAS BAD IN LAW, VOID-AB-INITIO AND BARRED BY LIMITATION. TO BEGIN WITH, WE WILL FIND THAT THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009, WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1/4/2009 WHICH IS NOT CHALLENGED AT ANY COURT OF LAW. THE HEADING OF THE SECTION 144C IS REFERENCE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. T HUS, SECTION 144C IS SPECIFICALLY IN RESPECT OF REFERENCE TO DI SPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL AND IT IS A MECHANISM TO RESOLVE TAX DISPUTES BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. S ECTION 144C HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AS TO PASSING OF ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT. SECTION 144C(4), THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U NDER SUB- SECTION 3 WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONT H IN WHICH THE ACCEPTANCE IS RECEIVED OR THE PERIOD OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS UNDER SUB SECTION (2) EXPIRES. THUS, SECTION 144C HAS GIVEN A MECHANISM FOR THE ASSESSEES TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL EVEN BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSM ENTS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE INSTEAD OF CHALLENGING ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE CIT (A), HAS PREFERRED THE PROCEDU RAL ROUTE OF DRP AND WHICH WAS DULY ACCEPTED AND ADJUDICATED BY THE DRP. THE LD. DRP DULY ACCEPTED THE REFERENCE AND ADJUDIC ATED THE MATTER TAKING INTO COGNIZANCE THE NEW PROVISION INS ERTED AS WELL AS THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE HAS AVAILED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C, VOLUNTARILY AS PER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER INCOME TAX STATUTE AND TH E LD. DRP RIGHTLY ACCEPTED THE REFERENCE FILED AND ADJUDICATE D THE MATTER. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. AR IN WHICH THE DECI SION OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S TRAVELPORT ( SUPRA) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS TAKEN IN CONSOLIDATED A PPEALS FOR ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 12 EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AS WELL. THE RATIO HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C ARE NOT APPLICA BLE TO THE EARLIER YEARS I.E. THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10 IS UNDISPUTABLE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN- FACT, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS VERY MU CH COVERED U/S 144C AS THE STATUTE IS NOT VAGUE ABOUT THE EFFE CTIVE DATE AND RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE DECISIO NS RELIED BY THE LD. AR ARE ON A DIFFERENT FOOTHOLD. 12. WHEN THE STATUTE USES CLEAR AND EXPLICIT LANGUA GE THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS OF A SECTION. F OR THE SAKE OF COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING AND READY REFERENCE WITH REG ARD TO APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 144C FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AND FOR THAT MATTER ALL THE ASSESSMENTS PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF AMENDMENT OF THE ACT, THE ENTIRE SCH EME OF LD. DRP IS BEING EXAMINED. 13. SECTION 144C ENVISAGES A CHANGE OF FORUM AND IT LEADS TO COMPLETE CESSATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER ON PASSING OF THE DRAFT ORDER. THEREAFTER THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS TO GIVE EFFECT TO EITHER THE DIRECTION OF THE DI SPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL OR PASS AN ORDER ON ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASSESSE E. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C READS AS UNDER: 144C. (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, NOTWITHSTAN DING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, FORWARD A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE DRAFT ORDER) TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE IF HE PROPOSES TO MAKE, ON OR AFT ER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009, ANY VARIATION WHICH IS PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF SUCH ASSESSEE. ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 13 (2) ON RECEIPT OF THE DRAFT ORDER, THE ELIGIBLE ASS ESSEE SHALL, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE RECEIPT BY HIM OF THE DRA FT ORDER,- (A) FILE HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIATIONS TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER; OR (B) FILE HIS OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO SUCH VARIATION WITH,- (I) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL; AND (II) THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (3) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPLETE THE ASSESS MENT ON THE BASIS OF THE DRAFT ORDER, IF- (A) THE ASSESSEE INTIMATES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIATION; OR (B) NO OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED WITHIN THE PERIOD SP ECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (2). (4) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, NOTWITHSTANDING AN YTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 153 OR SECTION 153B, PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM T HE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH,- (A) THE ACCEPTANCE IS RECEIVED; OR (B) THE PERIOD OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS UNDER SUB-SE CTION (2) EXPIRES. (5) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL SHALL, IN A CASE W HERE ANY OBJECTION IS RECEIVED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), ISSUE SUCH DIRECTIONS, AS IT THINKS FIT, FOR THE GUIDANCE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE HIM TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 14 (6) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL SHALL ISSUE THE DI RECTIONS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (5), AFTER CONSIDERING T HE FOLLOWING, NAMELY:- (A) DRAFT ORDER; (B) OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE; (C) EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE; (D) REPORT, IF ANY, OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VALUA TION OFFICER OR TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY; (E) RECORDS RELATING TO THE DRAFT ORDER; (F) EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY, OR CAUSED TO BE COLLECTE D BY, IT; AND (G) RESULT OF ANY ENQUIRY MADE BY, OR CAUSED TO BE MADE BY, IT. (7) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL MAY, BEFORE ISSUIN G ANY DIRECTIONS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (5),- (A) MAKE SUCH FURTHER ENQUIRY, AS IT THINKS FIT; OR (B) CAUSE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY TO BE MADE BY ANY INC OME-TAX AUTHORITY AND REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO IT. (8) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL MAY CONFIRM, REDUC E OR ENHANCE THE VARIATIONS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDER SO, HOWEVER, THAT IT SHALL NOT SET ASIDE ANY PROPOSED VARIATION OR ISSUE ANY DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY AND PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXPLANATION.- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HERE BY DECLARED THAT THE POWER OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL TO E NHANCE THE VARIATION SHALL INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAYS TO HAVE INCLUDED THE POWER TO CONSIDER ANY MATTER ARISING O UT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE DRAFT ORDER, ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 15 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH MATTER WAS RAISED OR NOT BY THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE. (9) IF THE MEMBERS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL DIFFER IN OPINION ON ANY POINT, THE POINT SHALL BE DECIDED AC CORDING TO THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS. (10) EVERY DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTI ON PANEL SHALL BE BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (11) NO DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) SHALL BE IS SUED UNLESS AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SUCH DIRECTIONS WHICH ARE PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE INTEREST OF THE REV ENUE, RESPECTIVELY. (12) NO DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) SHALL BE IS SUED AFTER NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE DRAFT ORDER IS FORWARDED TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE. (13) UPON RECEIPT OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SU B-SECTION (5), THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IN CONFORMITY WIT H THE DIRECTIONS, COMPLETE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO T HE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN SECTION 153 OR SECTION 153B, THE ASSES SMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONT H IN WHICH SUCH DIRECTION IS RECEIVED. (14) THE BOARD MAY MAKE RULES FOR THE PURPOSES OF T HE EFFICIENT FUNCTIONING OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL AND EXP EDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) BY THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 16 (14A) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPL Y TO ANY ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE [PRINCIPAL C OMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER AS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (12) OF SECTION 144BA.] ( 15) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION,- (A) 'DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL' MEANS A COLLEGIUM CO MPRISING OF THREE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS OF I NCOME-TAX CONSTITUTED BY THE BOARD FOR THIS PURPOSE; (B) 'ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE' MEANS,- (I) ANY PERSON IN WHOSE CASE THE VARIATION REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (1) ARISES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC TION 92CA; AND [(II) ANY NON-RESIDENT NOT BEING A COMPANY, OR ANY FOREIGN COMPANY.] 14. SECTION 144C IS A SELF CONTAINED PROVISION WHIC H CARVES OUT A SEPARATE CLASS OF ASSESSES I.E. ELIGIBLE ASSESSE E I.E. ANY PERSON IN WHOSE CASE THE VARIATION ARISES AS A CONS EQUENCE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER PASSED UN DER SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 92CA. FOR THIS CLASS OF ASSE SSES, IT PRESCRIBES A COLLEGIUM OF THREE COMMISSIONERS, ONCE OBJECTIONS ARE PREFERRED. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANELS POWERS AR E SIMILAR WITH THAT OF CIT(A), INCLUDING THE POWER TO CONFIR M, REDUCE OR ENHANCE THE VARIATION PROPOSED AND TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES NOT AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OBJECTIONS. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C, THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL CAN ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 17 ISSUE DIRECTIONS AS IT THINKS FIT FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE HIM TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AN D THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL CAN CONFIRM, REDUCE OR ENH ANCE THE VARIATIONS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDER. IT IS SPECI FICALLY STIPULATED IN SECTION 144C THAT EVERY DIRECTION ISS UED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL SHALL BE BINDING ON THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THIS IS AKIN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVI NG EFFECT TO AN ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR THE COUR TS. 15. THUS, SECTION 144C ENVISAGES A CHANGE OF FORUM ONLY BUT DOES NOT AFFECT THE CHARGEABILITY WHEN COMPARED WIT H THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ROUTE OF CIT-APPEALS AND IT L EADS TO COMPLETE CESSATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER ON PASSING OF THE DRAFT ORDER. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS TO GIVE EFFECT TO EITHER THE DIRECTION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL OR PASS AN ORDER ON ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASSESSE E. 16. IT IS THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT WHEN A P OWER IS GIVEN TO DO CERTAIN THING IN A CERTAIN WAY, THE THING MUS T BE DONE IN THAT WAY BUT NOT ANY OTHER METHODS. 17. THUS, IT IS THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT FA ILURE TO ADHERE TO THE MANDATORY PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 144C OF THE ACT WOULD VITIATE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS HENCE THE ADJUDICATION BY THE LD. DRP AGAINST THE REFERENCE F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE I NVALID. 18. THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009, HAS GIVEN A BENEF ICIAL LEGISLATION FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO CAN SPEED UP THEIR TAX DISPUTES FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO AVAIL THE PROVISIONS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CONTEST THAT THE ORDER PASSED IN CONCLUSION BE BAD IN ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 18 LAW OR VOID AB-INITIO OR BARRED BY LIMITATION. IN-FACT, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS WERE PROPERLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND THERE WAS NO PROCED URAL LAPSE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE OR LD. AR AS PRESCRIBED U/S 144C AS WELL AS THERE WAS NO LAPSE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED THE REMEDY PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SECTION BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. TO CLARIFY FURTHER, THE FINAN CE ACT CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT THE REFERENCE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION P ANEL WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE(NO.2) ACT, 2009, W.R.E.F. 0 1.04.2009, SECTION 144C(1) CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT NOTWITHSTANDI NG ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN THE ACT, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, FORWARD A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORDER OF THE ASSESS MENT TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE, IF HE PROPOSES TO MAKE ON OR AFT ER 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009, ANY VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS R ETURN WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF SUCH ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY FORWARDED THE DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON 03.01.2014 AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 144C(1) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE VARIATION WITH LD. DRP ON 29.04.2014 IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE SECTION 144C(2). THE LD. DRP VIDE ORDER DATED 3 1.12.2014 HAS ISSUED DIRECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 144C(6). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE UPON TH E RECEIPT OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 08.01.2015. THUS, ON GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW, THE JUDGMENTS QUOTED, THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSE SSEE, TPO, LD. DRP AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE CORRECT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT INSERTED BY THE FI NANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009, HENCE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FILED ON 8 .7.2021 WITH ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 19 REGARD TO NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS SECTION 1 44C ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 19. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION UNDE R RULE 11 OF THE INCOME TAX(APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 F OR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON 19.04.2019. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS READ AS UNDER: 3. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED DATED 08.01.2015 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 BY THE JCIT IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE JCIT WAS NOT THE COMPETENT PERSON TO PASS THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. THAT THE JCIT WHO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 08.01.2015 FOR AY 2010-11 WAS NOT COMPETENT TO PASS THE SAID ORDER, AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. VALIDITY OF THE ORDER-JOINT COMMISSIONER IS NOT COM PETENT A.O. 20. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE JOINT COMMISSIONER I S NOT COMPETENT TO PASS THE ORDER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3). IT WAS ARGUED THERE WAS NO VALID ORDER CONF ERRING THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE JOINT COMMISS IONER, RANGE, HISAR. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE REFORE, SUBMITTED THAT JCIT, RANGE HISAR, HISAR HAS NO JURI SDICTION TO PASS THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, IT IS NULLITY WHICH IS NOT CURABLE UNDER THE LAW. THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AND QUASHED FOR L ACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE A.O. 21. CONTROVERTING THESE ARGUMENTS, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED DATED 08.01.2015 FOR TH E A.Y. 2010-11 BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS VALID ORDER ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 20 AS IT HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. T HE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 124(3) JURISDICT ION OF AN A.O. CANNOT BE CALLED IN QUESTION BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH THE NOTICE, WHICH IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION. THE LD. D.R. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE PROPOSITION RE LIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: MR. ABHISHEK JAIN VS. ITO 94 TAXMANN.COM 355 (HC) CIT VS. S.S. AHLUWALIA 46 TAXMANN.COM 169 22. FURTHER, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE CIT, HISAR VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2013 HAD ISSUED ORDER U/S 120 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 ASSIGNING THE CASE TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THE WRITTEN REPLY RECEIVED FROM JCIT, HIS AR AND THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2013 OF THE CIT, HISAR. 23. FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE READY REFERENCE, THE ENTIRE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR ALONG WITH THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT, HISAR IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: DATED: 06.02.2020 F. NO. JCIT/HSR/2019-20/2896 TO, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( DR) (TP) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 1-1 BENCH, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110003. SUB:- FORWARDING OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. ( APPELLANT) IN ITA NO. 619/DEL/2015 FOR AY 2010-11 - REGARDING ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 21 ******* KINDLY REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER F. NO. CIT(DR)/T P/I-1 BENCH/ITAT/2019- 20/85 DATED 29.01.2020 ON THE SUBJ ECT CITED ABOVE. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS INTIMATED THAT THE THEN AO I.E. JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR HAD PASSED THE ORDER AND W AS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. 2. AS PER YOUR LETTER THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLO WING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS:- 'THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED DATED 08.01.2015 FOR AY 2010-11 BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ('J CIT') IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE JCIT WAS NOT THE COMPETENT PERSON TO PASS THE SAID ASSESSMENT OR DER. THAT THE JCIT WHO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 08.01.2015 FOR AY 2010-11 WAS NOT COMPETENT TO PASS THE SAID ORDER, AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3. AS PER ORDER DATED 29.07.2019 THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, HISAR VIDE ITS ORDER U/S 120 OF I. T. A CT ASSIGNED THIS CASE FOR COMPLETING ASSESSMENT HOLDING AS UNDE R:- 'IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY SUB SECTION (1) , (2) AND (5) OF SECTION 120 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WIT H CBDT'S NOTIFICATION NO. 251/2001 ( F. NO. 187/6/2001/IT(A- 1) DATED 23.08.2001 ENABLING ME IN THIS BEHALF, I, THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX HISAR HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSING OFF ICERS OF THIS CHARGE MENTIONED IN COLUMN 6 TO CONCURRENTLY EXERCI SE POWERS ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 22 AND FUNCTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS MENTIONED IN COLUMN 5 IN RESPECT OF CASES MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO 3 OF THE TA BLE.' 4. THUS THE THEN JCIT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED JUR ISDICTION OVER THE CASE BY THE CIT HISAR WHO WAS EMPOWERED TO ASSI GN THE CASES AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 120 OF I. T. ACT. THUS THE JCIT WAS COMPETENT TO PASS ORDER IN THIS CASE AND O RDER PASSED BY THE JCIT IS LEGAL AND AS PER PROVISION OF LAW. T HE COPY OF CIT'S ORDER AND OTHER DETAILS ARE ALSO ENCLOSED HER EWITH FOR READY REFERENCE. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING JURISDICTION AND LEGALITY OF ASS ESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. SD/- (P.K. SHARMA) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR RANGE, HISAR F.NO.CIT/HSR/TECH./127/2013-14/2591-95 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-14, HISAR - 125 001 (HARYANA.) DATED: 29.07.2013. ORDER: IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY SUB SECTION (1), (2) AND (5) OF SECTION 120 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WIT H CBDTS NOTIFICATION NO: 251/2001 (F.NO: 187/6/2001-IT(A-1) DATED 23.08.2001 ENABLING ME IN THIS BEHALF, I, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSING OF FICERS OF THIS CHARGE MENTIONED IN COLUMN 6 TO CONCURRENTLY E XERCISE POWERS AND FUNCTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS MENTI ONED IN ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 23 COLUMN 5 IN RESPECT OF THE CASES MENTIONED IN COLUM N NO. 3 OF THE TABLE: S. NO. PAN NAME OF THE ASSESSEE A.Y. FROM TO 1 AAACJ7097D JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., DELHI ROAD, HISAR 2010-11 ACIT, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 2 ABCFS5513P SUSHIL KUMAR MUNISH KUMAR, 39A, NAI ANAJ MANDI, HISAR 2011-12 ITO W-4, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 3 AABCM0054E MANGALI PETROCHEM LTD. 2011-12 ACIT, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 4 AAIFA6955C AJAY POLYMERS, 14 TH K.M. STONE, DELHI ROAD, HISAR 2011-12 ACI T, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 5 AACCS9317B SUPREME MOBILES LTD., 473- 74, AUTOMOBILES MARKET, HISAR 2011-12 ITO W-4, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 6 AAAAT8856C THE BASS CO-OP. MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD., VPO BASS 2011-12 ITO W-1, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 7 AARFS8397K SUBHAM FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD., NGM, HISAR 2011-12 ITO W-4, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 8 AAACN5499D JINDAL POLYBUTTON LTD., DELHI ROAD, HISAR 2011-12 ACIT, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 9 AACFG5467B GANESH ROADLIN ES, O.P. JINDAL MARG, HISAR 2011-12 ACIT, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 10 AALPU0923B SORABH UTHRA C/O M/S. V.S. INDUSTRIES, NEAR BHATIA COLONY, HANSI 2011-12 ITO W-4, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 11 AABCJ3714G JNB STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SEC. 27-28, HISAR 2011-12 ACIT, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 12 ACEPK8515A RAKESH KEDIA PROP. M/S. SUMIT INDUSTRIES, 17, ANAJ MANDI, HISAR 2011-12 ITO W-3, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 13 AAEFH3083N HARYANA GUAR GUM AND CHEMICALS, HISAR 2011-12 ITO W-2, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 14 ACPPJ1449K ANIL JINDAL, A -1, JINDAL INDUSTRIES LTD., STAFF COLONY, MODEL TOWN, HISAR 2011-12 ITOW-1, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR 15 AIAPG1382Q PAWAN KUMAR GARG, 1380, U.E.-LL, HISAR 2011-12 ITO W-3, HISAR JCIT, HISAR RANGE, HISAR THE JURISDICTION IN THE ABOVE STATED CASES ARE TRAN SFERRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING PENDING SCRUTINY ASSESSME NTS. THE ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 24 ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF DEMAND RAISED WOULD BE MADE I N THE D&CR REGISTER OF THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION PRESENTLY. A OS HAVING PRESENT JURISDICTION WOULD CONTINUE TO EXERCISE JUR ISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OTHER FUNCTIONS LIKE RECOVERY, REMAND RE PORT, REOPENING, AUDIT OBJECTIONS, RECTIFICATIONS, REFUND S ETC. AFTER 15 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IN A PARTICULAR CA SE, THE JURISDICTION WOULD BE REVERT BACK TO THE AO CONCERN ED AS PER ORDER NO: JCIT/HSR/JURISDICTION/2005-06 DATED 14.06 .2006 AND THE RECORDS WOULD BE RETURNED BACK TO THE CONCERNED AO. THIS ORDER SHALL COME INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 3 0.07.2013. SD/- (ASHOK KUMAR SAROHA) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HISAR 24. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE NOTIFICATION NO. 251/2001/F.NO. 187/6/2001/ITA-I WHICH IS AS UNDER: MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAKES) NOTIFICATION NEW DELHI, THE 23RD AUGUST, 2001 (INCOME TAX) S.O.822(E).IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SUB- SECTIONS (1) AND (2) OF SECTION 120 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961 (43 OF 1961), THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, HE REBY:- (A) DIRECTS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SP ECIFIED IN COLUMN(2) OF SCHEDULE ANNEXED HERETO SHALL PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF SUCH TERRITORIAL AREAS OR S UCH PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR OF SUCH INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOMES OR ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 25 OF SUCH CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES IN RESPECT OF WHI CH THE SAID COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-TAX WERE PERFORMING THEIR F UNCTIONS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE GOVERNME NT OF INDIA, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NOTIFICATION N UMBER 732(E) DATED 31.07.2001, BY VIRTUE OF THE JURISDICTION VES TED IN THEM UNDER NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD OR ANY OTHE R INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY FROM TIME TO TIME; (B) FURTHER DIRECTS THAT THE JOINT COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-TAX SUBORDINATE TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-TAX REFE RRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) SHALL PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF SUCH TERRITORIAL AREAS OR SUCH PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PER SONS OR OF SUCH INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOMES OR OF SUCH CASES OR C LASSES OF CASES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE SAID COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-TAX WERE PERFORMING THEIR FUNCTIONS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL BO ARD OF DIRECT TAXES NOTIFICATION NUMBER 732(E) DATED 31.07 .2001, BY VIRTUE OF THE JURISDICTION VESTED IN THEM UNDER NOT IFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD OR ANY OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORI TY FROM TIME TO TIME; (C) FURTHER ALSO DIRECTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER S SUBORDINATE TO THE -JOINT COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-TAX REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) SHALL PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF SUC H TERRITORIAL AREAS OR SUCH PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR OF S UCH INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOMES OR OF SUCH CASES OR CLASSES O F CASES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE SAID COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-T AX WERE PERFORMING THEIR FUNCTIONS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL BO ARD OF DIRECT TAXES NOTIFICATION NUMBER 732(E) DATED 31.07 .2001, BY ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 26 VIRTUE OF THE JURISDICTION VESTED IN THEM UNDER NOT IFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD OR ANY OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORI TY FROM TIME TO TIME; (D) FURTHER ALSO DIRECTS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-TAX SPECIFIED IN COLUMN (2) OF THE SAID SCHEDULE HERETO ANNEXED, HAVING THEIR HEADQUARTERS AT THE PLACES SPECIFIED I N THE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES IN COLUMN (3) OF THE SAID SCH EDULE, SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS IN RE SPECT OF SUCH CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES OF PERSONS OR CLASSE S OF PERSONS SPECIFIED IN THE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES IN COLUMN (4 ) OF THE SAID SCHEDULE AND IN RESPECT OF ALL INCOMES OR CLASSES O F INCOME; (E) AUTHORISES THE COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-TAX REFE RRED TO IN THIS NOTIFICATION TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR TH E EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY THE JOIN T COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-TAX, WHO ARE SUBORDINATE TO THEM, IN RESPECT OF SUCH CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES OF PERSON S OR CLASSES OF PERSONS SPECIFIED IN THE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES I N COLUMN (4) OF THE SAID SCHEDULE AND IN RESPECT OF ALL INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME; (F) FURTHER AUTHORISES THE JOINT COMMISSIONERS OF I NCOME-TAX REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (E) OF THIS NOTIFICATION, TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMA NCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS, WHO ARE SUBORD INATE TO THEM, IN RESPECT OF SUCH CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES OF PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS SPECIFIED IN THE CORRESPONDING E NTRIES IN COLUMN (4) OF THE SAID SCHEDULE AND IN RESPECT OF A LL INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH SUCH JOINT CO MMISSIONERS ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 27 OF INCOME-TAX ARE AUTHORISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX UNDER CLAUSE(E) OF THIS NOTIFICATION. 2. THIS NOTIFICATION SHALL COME INTO FORCE WITH EFF ECT FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. S.NO. DESIGNATION OF INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES HEAD QUARTER CASES OR CLASS OF CASES (1) (2) (3) (4) 1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL-I), DELHI DELHI ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL- II), DELHI DELHI ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL- III), DELHI DELHI ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 4 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL-I), MUMBAI MUMBAI ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 5 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL- II), MUMBAI MUMBAI ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 6 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL- ILL), MUMBAI MUMBAI ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 7 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL- IV), MUMBAI MUMBAI ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 8 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL), COCHIN COCHIN ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 9 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL-I), CHENNAI CHENNAI ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 10 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL- II), CHENNAI CHENNAI ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 11 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL- ILL), CHENNAI CHENNAI ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 12 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL-I), KOLKATA KOLKATA. ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 13 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL- II), KOLKATA KOLKATA ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 14 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL-III), KOLKATA KOLKATA ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 15 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE PUNE ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 16 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR NAGPUR ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 17 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL- I), AHMADABAD AHMADABAD ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 18 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL- 11), AHMADABAD AHMADABAD ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 28 19 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR JAIPUR ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 20 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD HYDERABAD ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 21 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL), PATNA PATNA ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 22 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE BANGALORE ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). 23 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR KANPUR ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OFI 1961). 1 24 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA LUDHIANA ALL CASES ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961). [NOTIFICATION NO. 251/2001/F. NO. 187/6/2001/ITA-I] PROMILA BHARDWAJ, DIRECTOR 25. PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON AND QUOTED IN THE ORDER DATED 29/07/2013 BY THE LD.CIT HISAR DOESNT CONFER ANY SUCH POWERS TO THE CIT HISAR. THUS, THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT, HISAR IS WITHOUT ANY ORDER BY THE CBDT U/S 120(4). 26. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE LEGAL ISSUE OF CONFERRING THE JURISDICTION ON THE AO BY THE CIT IS EXAMINED IN DE TAIL. 27. SECTION 2(7A) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, PROVIDES D EFINITION OF ASSESSING OFFICER SECTION 2 (7A) 2. IN THIS ACT, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, (7A) 'ASSESSING OFFICER' MEANS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OR THE INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 29 WHO IS VESTED WITH THE RELEVANT JURISDICTION BY VIR TUE OF DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1 ) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, AND THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIO NER OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIONER OR JOI NT DIRECTOR WHO IS DIRECTED UNDER 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. 28. THE ABOVE PROVISION PROVIDES THAT JOINT COMMISS IONER TO BE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY WHEN HE HAS BEEN DIRECTED UNDER SECTION 120(4)(B) BY THE BOARD TO ACT AS AN ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 29. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, SECTION 120 IS REPRODU CED AS UNDER: JURISDICTION OF INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. 120. (1) INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES SHALL EXERCISE ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASSIGNED TO SUCH AUTHORITIES BY OR UNDER THIS ACT I N ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS AS THE BOARD MAY ISSUE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANC E OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THOSE AUTHORITIES . EXPLANATION.FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREB Y DECLARED THAT ANY INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY, BEING AN AUTHORITY HIGHER IN RANK, MAY, IF SO DIRECTED BY TH E BOARD, EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTION S OF THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK AND ANY SUCH DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE BOARD SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A DIRECTION ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1). (2) THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BOARD UNDER SUB-SECTION ( 1) MAY AUTHORISE ANY OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY TO ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 30 ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POW ERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF T HE OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES WHO ARE SUBORDINATE TO IT. (3) IN ISSUING THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTIONS (1) AND (2), THE BOARD OR OTHER INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY AUTHORISED BY IT MAY HAVE REGARD TO A NY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, NAMELY: (A) TERRITORIAL AREA; (B) PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS; (C) INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME; AND (D) CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES. (4) WITHOUT 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 SPECIFIED THEREIN, (A) AUTHORISE ANY PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OR DIRECTOR TO PERFORM SUCH FUNCTIONS OF ANY OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY AS MAY BE ASSIGNED TO HIM BY THE BOARD; (B) EMPOWER THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING THAT THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASSIGNED TO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY SPECIFIED AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES, SHALL BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED BY AN ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR AN ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR A JOINT COMMISSIONER OR A JOINT DIRECTOR, AND, WHERE ANY ORDER IS MADE UNDER THIS CLAUSE, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR IN ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIONER OR JOINT DIRECTOR BY WHOM THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS ARE TO BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED UNDER SUCH ORDER, AND ANY ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 31 PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTIO N OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT APPLY. (5) THE DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTIONS (1) AND (2) MAY, WHEREVER CONSIDERED NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPER MANAGEMENT OF THE WORK, REQUIRE TWO OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER OR NOT OF THE SAME CLASS) TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM, CONCURRENTLY, THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF ANY AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSON S OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES; AND, WHERE SUCH POWERS AND FUNCTIONS ARE EXERCISED AND PERFORMED CONCURRENTLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES, ANY AUTHOR ITY LOWER IN RANK AMONGST THEM SHALL EXERCISE THE POWER S AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AMONGST THEM MAY DIRECT, AND, FURTHER, REFERENCES I N ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH HIGHER AUTHORITY AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTIO N OF ANY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL NOT APPLY. (6) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION, OR IN SECTION 124, THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, DIRECT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT OR THING UNDER THIS ACT OR ANY RULE MADE THEREUNDER BY ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS, THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY EXERCISING AND PERFORMING THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE SAID PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS SHALL BE SUCH AUTHORITY AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTIFICATION. 30. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF MEGA CORPORATION LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-6, NE W DELHI [2015] 155 ITD 1019 (DELHI-TRIB.) IN WHICH IT WAS H ELD AS UNDER: ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CAN PERFORM FUNCTIONS AND, EXERCISE POWERS OF AN ASSESSING OFFI CER ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 32 ONLY IF HE IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED UNDER SECTION 120(4)(B). 31. ACCORDING TO SECTION 120(1) AND (2) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE BOARD MAY ASSIGN TO INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO EXERC ISE ANY OF THE POWERS AND PERFORM OF OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS C ONFERRED ON AS THE CASE MAY BE UNDER THIS ACT TO ACT AS INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. THE BOARD MAY ALSO ISSUE DIRECTIONS OR AUTHORISE ANY OTHER INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR EXERCISE OF POWERS AND PERFORM OF FUNCTIONS BY OR A NY OF OTHER INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WHO WERE SUBORDINATE TO IT. 32. IN ISSUANCE OF SUCH DIRECTIONS UNDER SUB-SECTIO NS (I) AND (II), THE BOARD OR ANY OTHER INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AUTHORISED BY IT MAY HAVE REGARD TO THE CRITERIA NAMELY TERRIT ORIAL AREA, PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS, INCOME OR CLASS OF INCO ME AND CASES OR CLASS OF CASES. ACCORDING TO SECTION 120(4) OF T HE I.T. ACT, BOARD MAY BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDER AUTHORISE OR EMPOWER PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PR. CHIEF C OMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMIS SIONER TO ISSUE ORDER IN WRITING THAT THE POWERS AND FUNCTION S CONFERRED ON OR AS THE CASE MAY BE ASSIGN TO THE A.O. BY OR U NDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY SPECIFIED AREA OR PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS OR INCOME OR CLASS OF INCOME OR CASE OR CLASS OF CASES , SHALL BE EXERCISED OR PERFORM BY JOINT COMMISSIONER OR OTHER S AND WHERE ANY ORDER IS MADE UNDER THIS CLAUSE, REFERENC E IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULES MADE T HEREUNDER TO THE A.O. SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCE TO THE JOI NT COMMISSIONER OR OTHERS BY WHOM THE POWERS AND FUNCT IONS ARE TO BE EXERCISED OR PERFORM UNDER SUCH ORDER AND ANY PROVISIONS ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 33 OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF THE J OINT COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT APPLY. 33. THESE PROVISIONS, THEREFORE, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE BOARD MAY ASSIGN THE POWER TO ANY INCOME TAX AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE POWERS OF THE A.O. HAVING REGARD TO TERRITORIAL ARE A ETC., OR THE BOARD MAY AUTHORISE OR EMPOWER PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL , PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER ETC., TO ISSUE ORDER IN WRITING TO ASS IGN POWERS OF THE A.O. TO OTHER AUTHORITIES INCLUDING JOINT COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX AS ASSESSING OFFICER. 34. CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(7A) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WHICH DEFINES THE DEFINITION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX COULD FUNCTION AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN JURISDI CTION HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO HIM BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120(4)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1. 35. ON GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRE EVENTS, WE FIND THA T THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) INVOKING THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SUB-SECTION (1), (2) AND (5) OF SECTIO N 120 WOULD NOT CONFER ANY POWERS TO THE CIT TO CONFER THE CONC URRENT EXERCISE OF POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS. FURTH ER, WHEN CONCURRENT POWERS ARE CONFERRED BOTH THE OFFICERS N AMELY JOINT/ADDL. COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH THE ACIT OR DCI T/ ITO WOULD EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION. WHEREAS THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2013 OF THE CIT CONFERRED CONCURRENT EXERCISE FROM ACIT, HISAR TO JCIT, HISAR WHICH EFFECTIVELY CULMINATED I N TRANSFER OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 FROM ACIT, HISA R TO JCIT, HISAR. WHEN THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO THE OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER, JCIT IN THIS CASE, IT IS LEGALLY ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 34 MANDATED TO PASS ORDER U/S 127 BY THE LD. CIT INVOK ING THE POWER TO TRANSFER U/S 127. 36. IN THE INSTANT CASE, (1) THERE IS NO ORDER BY THE LD. CIT INVOKING POWERS CONFERRED U/S 120(4) WHEREIN SUB-SE CTION (B) EMPOWERS THE CIT TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING THAT TH E POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON OR AS THE CASE MAY BE ASSIGN ED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OR UNDER THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY SPECIFIED AREAS OR PERSONS SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THE JOINT CO MMISSIONER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ORDER BY THE LD. CIT INVOKING THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 120, WE HOL D THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER LACKS JURISDI CTION. (2) FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT IN PURSUANCE WITH THE NOTIFICATION NO.251/2001 ALSO DID NOT CONF ER ANY JURISDICTION TO THE CIT, HISAR. (3) IN ADDITION, NO ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE LD.CIT TRANSFERRING THE CASE FROM ONE AO TO OTHER AO U/S 127 IS ALSO WANTING IN THE INSTANT CASE . 37. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT JCIT, HISAR RANGE , DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND SIN CE HE DID NOT ASSUME THE JURISDICTION LEGALLY AND VALIDLY, THEREF ORE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY HIM IS VITIATED AND ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 38. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL OF ASSESSE E IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ITA NO.619/DEL/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. 35 39. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/09/2021. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR . B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17/09/2021 *SUBODH KUMAR, SR. PS* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR