ITO, SRIGANGANAGAR V. M/s. City Garden, SRIGANGANAGAR

ITA 671/JODH/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62039 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R H GOHEL
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH , JODHPUR BEFORE S/SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JM AND SANJAY ARORA, AM C.O. NO. 48A/JU/2007 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 671/JU/2007) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 CITY GARDEN, GAGAN PATH, SRI GANGANAGAR [PAN: APPJC 7893L] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REVENUE BY SHRI R.H. GOHEL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 19/03/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/04/2012 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS A CROSS OBJECTION (C.O.) BY THE ASSESSEE A RISING OUT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, BIKA NER (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 20- 06-2007, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL CONT ESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) VIDE ORDER DATED 27- 03-2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2003-04. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN ITS CO WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING; IT HAVING SUBMITTED LETTERS, AS DATED 16/3 /2012, STATING THAT THE LEGAL QUESTION RAISED BY ITS C.O. BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS PLACED ON RECORD. FURTHER, THE REVENUES APPEAL BE HEARD ONLY SUBSEQU ENTLY, I.E., IN CASE THE ASSESSMENT SURVIVES THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E REVENUE HAS ALSO PLACED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN THIS RESPECT ON RECORD. WE FIND FORC E IN THE SAID PLEA IN-AS-MUCH AS IF THE 2 ASSESSEE'S CO IS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS FAV OUR, THE REVENUES APPEAL MAY NOT SURVIVE FOR CONSIDERATION; THE ASSESSEES CHALLENGE BEING TO THE VERY ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRAMING T HE ASSESSMENT, SO THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDING, IT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED . THE LD. DR ALSO CONCURRED TO THE SAID PROPOSITION, WHEN PUT ACROSS TO HIM BY THE BENCH DU RING HEARING; NO PREJUDICE BEING CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE, THOUGH IN D EPARTURE OF THE USUAL PRACTICE OF HEARING CROSS APPEALS TOGETHER, IN VIEW OF THE PECU LIAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE OF THE ISSUE/S UNDER APPEAL, TAKE UP T HE ASSESSEE'S CROSS OBJECTION FOR THE PRESENT. 3. THE ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT IS THAT THE JOINT C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRI GANGANAGAR (JT. CIT FOR SHORT) ISSUING NOTICE U/S . 148 ON 14-10-2004 (PAPER-BOOK PAGE 37) FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, WHO ALSO RECORDED THE RE ASON(S) FOR THE SAME ON 14-10-2004 (PB PG. 36), IS NOT ITS ASSESSING OFFICER (`AO FOR SHORT). ONLY ITS, I.E., THE ASSESSEE'S, AO IS THE COMPETENT TO RECORD THE REASON/S AND ISSUE N OTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, A JURISDICTIONAL NOTICE, WHICH, THEREFORE, IS NOT VAL ID IN LAW. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN PURSUANCE THERETO IS, THEREFORE, BAD IN LAW, AND LI ABLE TO BE CANCELLED. THE REVENUES STAND, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS THAT THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM `ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 2(7A), INSERTED IN THE STATUTE BY DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDME NT) ACT, 1987, W.E.F. 01-04-1988, INCLUDES A JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHO IS DIRECTED TO EXERCISE OR PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON OR ASSIGNED TO AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE ACT. THE JCIT, WHEN SO AUTHORIZED, HOLDS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF THE PERSONS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER/DIRECTION. THE J T. CIT, SRI GANGANAGAR HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF NOTIFICATION NO.1 OF 2001-02 DATED 01-08-2001 (COPY ON RECORD) ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, B IKANER (`CIT HEREINAFTER) IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED ON HIM UNDER SUB-S ECTIONS (1) AND (2) OF SEC. 120 OF THE ACT, BEING SO AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD (CENTRAL BOAR D OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI) VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. SO NO. 732(E) DATED 31-07-2001, EF FECTIVE 01-08-2001 (COPY ON RECORD). 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR, AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD, AS WELL AS THE CASE LAW ON THE SUBJECT. 4.1 THE FIRST AND THE PRIMARY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR DETERMINATION, IS WHETHER THE JT. CIT WAS AT RELEVANT TIME AN `ASSESSING OFFICER, I.E., WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM U/S. 2 (7A) OF THE ACT. THIS IS AS THE ACT CONTEMPLATES TH E RECORDING OF THE REASON/S U/S. 148 (2) AND THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148(1) ONLY BY AN AO. THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER HE WAS THE ASSESSEE'S AO OR NOT WOULD ARISE, BUT ONLY NEXT. TH IS IS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IF HE IS NOT AN AO, I.E., AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS CONFERRED ON OR ASSIGNED TO AN AO, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HI M BEING THE ASSESSEE'S AO AND, THUS, ELIGIBLE TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S. 148 THERETO, OR TO ANY OTHER FOR THAT MATTER. OF COURSE, THOUGH, AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY WOULD BE AN AO ONLY IN RELATION TO SOME PERSONS OR CLASS OF PERSONS, AND CANNOT BE SO IN VACUUM OR DE HORS THE SAME. THIS ASPECT IS ALSO RELEVANT FOR THE REASON THAT THE ACT PROVIDES FOR JURISDICTI ON OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SEPARATELY, VIDE SECTIONS 120 AND 124 OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. THE JURISDICTION OF AN AO CAN BE CHALLENGED ONLY BY FOLLOWING AND IN TERMS OF THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ITS RESPECT UNDER SECTION 12 4 ITSELF. ANY GRIEVANCE IN RELATION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO PROCEEDING TO ASSESS ANY PERSON, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE COURTS OF LAW, INCLUDING THE APEX COURT AND THE HON'BLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IS NOT APPEAL- ABLE AND, IN FACT NOT JUSTICIABLE, BEING ONLY A DEF ECT OF PROCEDURE NOT INVALIDATING THE END ACTION; THE ACT NOT TREATING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNC TIONS TO VARIOUS AUTHORITIES AS ONE OF SUBSTANCE BUT AS ONE OF PROCEDURE. THE COURTS, THER EFORE, HAVE NO ROLE TO PLAY IN THE MATTER. REFERENCE IN THIS CONTEXT IS DRAWN TO THE D ECISIONS, AS IN THE CASE OF RAI BAHADUR SETH TEOMAL VS. CIT (1959) 36 ITR 9 (SC); CIT VS. SOHAN LAL SEWA RAM JAGGI (2009) 222 CTR 412 (ALL.); HINDUSTAN TRANSPORT COMPANY VS. INSPECTING ASSISTAN T COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR. (1991) 189 ITR 326 (ALL.); INDIRA & COMPANY VS. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 466 (RAJ.); SOHANI DEVI JAIN VS. ITO (1977) 109 ITR 130 (GAU.)(FB); UDAIPUR DISTILLERY COMPANY VS. CIT (1971) 87 ITR 516 (RAJ.); ROOPNARAIN RAMCHANDRA VS. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 171 (ALL.). ALL THESE DECISIONS ARE WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 124 OF THE ACT OR THE CORRESPONDING PROVISI ON OF THE 1922 ACT. HERE IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO ADD THAT THE NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE OF SEC. 124(5), CONFERRING ALL THE POWERS A S 4 CONFERRED BY THE ACT ON AN ASSESSING OFFICER, I.E., IN RESPECT OF INCOME ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE AREA/S OVER WHICH HE IS VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF ORDER U/S. 120(1) OR 120(2) OF THE ACT (AS THE JT. CIT IS IN I NSTANT CASE IN RESPECT OF DISTRICT GANGANAGAR/ ALSO REFER PARA 4.3 OF THIS ORDER), IS, AGAIN, ONLY TO AN `ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.2 THE INSTANT CASE WOULD, THUS, FALL TO BE COVERE D U/S. 120 READ WITH SECTION 2(7A) OF THE ACT. SECTION 2(7A) READS AS UNDER: ` 2. DEFINITIONS: IN THIS ACT, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, - ( 7A ) ASSESSING OFFICER MEANS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIO NER OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OR DEPUTY DIRECT OR OR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER 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 COMMISSIONER OR ADDITI ONAL DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIONER OR JOINT DIRECTOR WHO IS DIRECTED UNDE R CLAUSE ( B ) OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF THAT SECTION TO EXERCISE OR PERFORM ALL OR A NY OF THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR ASSIGNED TO, AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THIS ACT; SECTION 120 OF THE ACT IS AGAIN RELEVANT, AND IS RE PRODUCED AS UNDER: `120. JURISDICTION OF INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES (1) INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES SHALL EXERCISE ALL OR AN Y OF THE POWERS AND PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ASS IGNED TO SUCH AUTHORITIES BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS AS THE BOARD MAY ISSUE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THOSE AUTHORITIES. EXPLANATION. FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TH AT ANY INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY, BEING AN AUTHORITY HIGHER IN RANK, MAY, IF SO DIREC TED BY THE BOARD, EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY L OWER 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 ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCI SE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THE OTHER INCOME-TAX AUT HORITIES 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 REGA RD TO ANY 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. 5 (4) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT IONS (1) AND (2), THE BOARD MAY, BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDER, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS, REST RICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED THEREIN, ( A ) AUTHORISE ANY DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR TO PER FORM SUCH FUNCTIONS OF ANY OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY AS MAY BE ASSIGNED TO HIM BY T HE BOARD; ( B ) EMPOWER THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONE R OR COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING THAT THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CON FERRED 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 CLAS SES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES, SHALL BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED BY AN ADDITI ONAL COMMISSIONER OR AN ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR A JOINT COMMISSIONER OR A JOINT DIRECTOR, AND, WHER E 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 D EEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR J OINT COMMISSIONER OR JOINT DIRECTOR BY WHOM THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS ARE TO BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED UNDER SUCH ORDER, AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTION OF THE [JOINT] COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT APPLY. (5) THE DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SE CTIONS (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 EXER CISE AND PERFORM, CONCURRENTLY, THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF ANY AREA OR PERSONS OR CLAS SES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES; AND, WHERE SUCH POWER S AND FUNCTIONS ARE EXERCISED AND PERFORMED CONCURRENTLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF DIFFEREN T CLASSES, ANY AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK AMONGST THEM SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNC TIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AMONGST THEM MAY DIRECT, AND, FURTHER, REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER P ROVISION 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 SAN CTION OF ANY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL NOT APPLY. (6) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY DIREC TION 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 PERS ONS, 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 NOTIFICAT ION. 4.3 THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE INCOME TAX AUTHORI TY ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 14-10-04 TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THE JT. CIT, SRI GANGANAGAR. CLEARLY, THEREFORE, ONLY A JOINT COMMISSIONER, WHERE AUTHORI ZED U/S. 120(4)(B) BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, WOULD QUALIFY TO BE A AO, OF COURSE, IN RESPECT OF THE PERSON SPECIFIED IN THE SAID AUTHORIZATION. THE HON 'BLE APEX COURT HAS IN THE CASE OF WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. INDIRA PUR I STUDIO (P.) LTD . (IN CIVIL APPEAL 6 NO.3865 OF 2001 DATED 19-10-2010) HELD THAT THE USE OF THE WORD MEANS IN A DEFINITION SIGNIFIES A HARD-AND-FAST DEFINITION. THE SAME WOUL D, THEREFORE, HAVE TO BE STRICTLY APPLIED. THE REVENUE HAS NOT, DESPITE SEVERAL OPPOR TUNITIES AFFORDED THERETO, BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY ORDER/DIRECTION/NOTIFICATION U/S. 120(4) (B). THE NOTIFICATION NO. 1 OF 2001-02 DATED 01-08-2001 BY THE COMMISSIONER IS ONLY IN PUR SUANCE TO THE POWER CONFERRED ON HIM UNDER SUB-SECTIONS (1) AND (2) OF SECTION 120 O F THE ACT. THOUGH IT BEARS REFERENCE TO THE NOTIFICATION NO. SO NO. 732(E) DATED 31-07-2001 , THE SAME IS NOT ON RECORD. FURTHER, THE PREAMBLE TO THE NOTIFICATION NO. 1/2001-02 (SUP RA), AS WELL AS ITS CONTENTS, UNEQUIVOCALLY CONVEY OF IT AS BEING A GENERAL ORDER PASSED IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS U/SS. 120(1) AND 120 (2) BY THE CIT, BIKANER, AUTHORIZING , AMONG OTHERS, JT.CIT, SRI GANGANAGAR (REFER SERIAL NO. 2 THEREOF). THE SAME A UTHORIZES HIM, I.E., JT. CIT, SRI GANGANAGAR, TO EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE PERSONS OR THE CLASS OF THE PERSONS SPECIFIED IN COLUMN 5 OF S CHEDULE I THERETO, I.E., THE PERSONS RESIDING OR HAVING THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINES S, REGISTERED OFFICE, ETC. LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF SRI GANGANAGAR. THE SAME DOES NOT C ONFER ON HIM OR ASSIGN TO HIM THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF AN AO, WHICH COULD ONLY BE BY AN ORDER PASSED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IN PURSUANCE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE SAID AUTHORITY BY THE BOARD U/S. 1 20(4)(B) OF THE ACT. NO OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION OR NOTIFICATION IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN B ROUGHT ON RECORD OR TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE, AS WHERE ISSUED U/S. 120(6) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THE MATTER HAS BEEN DITHERING FOR LONG, ONLY TO ENABLE THE REVENUE; ITS PROCESSES BEI NG PROLIX, TO BRING ON RECORD THE RELEVANT ORDER/NOTIFICATION; THE COURTS/TRIBUNALS B EING GENERALLY LOATH TO ANNUL/CANCEL ASSESSMENTS ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS, WITH THE JT. CIT, SRI GANGANAGAR, BEING DEFINITELY AN INCOME TAX AUTHORITY HOLDING CHARGE OF THE PERSONS, AS THE ASSESSEE, HAVING THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE DISTRICT OF SRI GANGANAGAR , RAJASTHAN AT THE RELEVANT TIME. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE APPLICATION U/S. 6(1) OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 DATED 16-05-2008, REQUESTING THE AO (ITO, WARD- 1, SRI GANGANAGAR) FOR A COPY OF ANY SUCH ORDER/NOTIFICATI ON, WHICH IS AVERRED (VIDE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26-06-2008, ON RECORD), TO HAVE BEEN DENIED B Y THE ADDRESSEE (VIDE LETTER NO.168 DATED 16-06-2008), STATING THE SAME TO BE NOT IN PU BLIC INTEREST. HOW, WE WONDER, COULD 7 THE DISCLOSURE OF A PUBLIC ORDER, AS THE SAID NOTIF ICATION, BE NOT IN PUBLIC INTEREST ? THAT APART, THE SAME HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSING THE INSTANT CROSS OBJECTION. THE REVENUE S, WHICH HAS ALSO PLACED ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON RECORD, STAND THAT THE JT. CIT, SRI GANGANAGAR, HAD JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE ASSESSEE U/S. 120 OF THE ACT, THUS, CANNOT BE A CCEPTED, I.E., IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC ORDER ISSUED IN PURSUANCE TO SEC. 120(4)(B) SPECIFI CALLY AUTHORIZING HIM TO EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS CONFERRED ON OR ASSIGNED TO AN AO BY OR UNDER THE ACT, OR A NOTIFICATION U/S. 120(6) OF THE ACT. THE CLAIM OF HIM HOLDING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, I.E., WITH THE ITO, WARD 1, SRI GANGA NAGAR, WOULD AGAIN ONLY FOLLOW SUCH AN ORDER; THE PROVISION OF SEC. 2(7A) BEING UNAMBIGUOU SLY CLEAR IN THE MATTER. FURTHER, NO DOUBT THE SAID AUTHORITY IS LOWER IN RANK TO THE JO INT COMMISSIONER, BUT FOR THE JT. CIT, TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE THE POWERS OR PERFORM THE FUNCT IONS OF THE SAID AUTHORITY, UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEES AO, AND THUS QUALIFIED TO RECORD THE REASON/S U/S. 148(2) OR ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S. 148(1) THERETO, HAS TO BE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORI ZED BY THE BOARD IN THIS REGARD (REFER EXPLANATION TO SEC. 120(1)). THE REVENUES CLAIM OF HIM HOLDIN G CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE ITO, WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR IS, THEREFORE, WITHOUT SUBSTANCE. ALSO, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR APPLICATION OF S. 292B OF THE ACT. 4.4 THERE IS, AS SUCH, AN INHERENT LACK OF JU RISDICTION WITH THE JT. CIT, SRI GANGANAGAR IN THE INSTANT CASE TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S. 148(1) O R TO RECORD THE REASON/S U/S. 148 (2) PRECEDING THE SAME, AS UNDISPUTEDLY DONE BY HIM ON 14/10/2004, BEING NOT AUTHORIZED TO BE AN AO AT THE RELEVANT TIME IN RESPECT OF THE PER SONS, AS THE ASSESSEE, OVER WHICH HE HAD TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. THE CHALLENGE TO HIS JURI SDICTION TO ISSUE THE SAID NOTICE U/S. 148, WOULD, THEREFORE, FALL TO BE DECIDED BY US IN APPEA L IMPUGNING THE SAID NOTICE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION; THE RELEVANT GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE R EADING AS: ` THAT THE LD. CIT, BIKANER HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT JCIT, SRI GANGANAGAR HAS JURISDICTION AS AO ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U /S 148 OF THE ACT . THE ENSUING IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IS, THEREFORE, WITH OUT JURISDICTION, LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT SO. 8 5. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: JODHPUR DATED: APRIL 27 , 2012 *MISHRA COPY TO: 1. M/S. CITY GARDEN, GAGAN PATH, SRI GANGANAGAR 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR 3. THE CIT(A)-1, BIKANER 4. THE CIT, CONCERNED. 5. THE D.R., I.T.A.T. 6. GUARD FILE (C.O. NO.48A/JU/2007) BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGIST RAR) ITAT , JODHPUR BENCH