Shri V.Heerachand Jain, Tindivanam V. CIT, CHENNAI

ITSSA 99/CHNY/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0724 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATH PEERYA
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Block assessment
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS) A.NO.99/MDS/2007 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD: 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & 01.04.2002 TO 22.01.2003 SHRI V. HEERACHAND JAIN, 15A, KRISHNAPPA PILLAI STREET, TINDIVANAM. PAN : AACPJ 2330 G V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI - 600 034. ('(/ APPELLANT) (*+'(/ RESPONDENT) '( , - / APPELLANT BY : SH. N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE *+'( , - / RESPONDENT BY : SH. PATHLAVATH PEERYA, CIT . , /$ / DATE OF HEARING : 09.04.2015 0!1 , /$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.04.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER SECTIO N 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, DATED 22.03.2007. 2 I.T.(SS) A. NO.99/MDS/2007 2. SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS ORIGINALLY AT PONDICHERRY. HOWEVER, THE JURISDICTION WAS TRAN SFERRED TO CHENNAI CENTRAL BY AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 127 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). WHEN THE JURISDICT ION WAS TRANSFERRED FROM UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY TO THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, A NOTICE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED MANDATORILY UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN REGULAR QUANTUM APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, TH E ISSUE WAS NOT DISPOSED OF. IN FACT, THE CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO A DJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF JURISDICTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF CHENNAI. WHEN THE APPEAL TRAVELLED TO T HIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.(SS) A.NO.12(MDS)/2014, THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORD ER DATED 15.09.2014, REMANDED BACK THE CASE TO THE FILE OF T HE CIT(APPEALS) WITH A DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN CHENNAI IN PASSING THE ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, T HE MATTER IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). IN THIS CASE, ACC ORDING TO LD. COUNSEL, THE COMMISSIONER WHO PASSED THE IMPUGNED O RDER, HAS NO JURISDICTION AT ALL IN CASE THE TRANSFER OF JURISDI CTION FROM UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY TO THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU WAS DECLARED 3 I.T.(SS) A. NO.99/MDS/2007 ILLEGAL. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NULLITY IN LAW AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE MAINTAINABLE. ALTERNATIVELY, THE LD. COU NSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE SAME COMMISSIONER FOR CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICT ION AND THE LEGALITY OF TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT FROM PONDICHERRY TO TAMIL NADU. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH THAT WHEN THIS TRIBUNAL B Y AN ORDER DATED 15.09.2014 HAS ALREADY REMANDED BACK THE MATT ER TO THE CIT(APPEALS) TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AND LEGALITY OF THE TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT FROM PONDICHERRY TO TAMIL NA DU, AND THE SAME ISSUE IS REMANDED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER, WOULD THERE NOT BE ANY CONFLICTING OP INION BETWEEN THE TWO CO-ORDINATE AUTHORITIES, THE LD. COUNSEL SU BMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE, THE MATTER IS LEFT FOR THE DECISION OF T HE BENCH. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. PATHLAVATH PEERYA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE I S NO NEED FOR ISSUING NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER. WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER SECTI ON 127 OF THE ACT IS TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY. EVEN FOR GIVING OPPORTU NITY, THE PARLIAMENT HAS MENTIONED THE WORD MAY. THEREFORE , IT IS NOT MANDATORY TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BE FORE PASSING ORDER UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE JUR ISDICTION OF THE 4 I.T.(SS) A. NO.99/MDS/2007 ASSESSING OFFICER FROM PONDICHERRY TO CHENNAI WAS R IGHTLY TRANSFERRED. HENCE THE PRESENT COMMISSIONER HAS RI GHTLY EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDL Y, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF LEGALITY OF TRANSFER OF JUR ISDICTION FROM PONDICHERRY TO CHENNAI BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). TH E CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E. WHEN THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.(SS) A. NO. 12/MDS/2014, THIS TRIBUNAL REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF TH E CIT(APPEALS) WITH A DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NOW THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND THE VALIDITY OF THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FROM P ONDICHERRY TO CHENNAI IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE APPE LLATE COMMISSIONER. THEREFORE, AT THIS STAGE, IF THE SAM E ISSUE WITH REGARD TO JURISDICTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMIS SIONER AND EXERCISING HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 263 AND VALIDITY OF THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FROM PONDICHERRY TO CHENNAI IS REMA NDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER, THEN THE ISSUE WOULD BE P ENDING BEFORE THE TWO CO-ORDINATING AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THER E MAY BE A POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICTING JUDICIAL OPINION ON THE ISSUE. THIS TRIBUNAL 5 I.T.(SS) A. NO.99/MDS/2007 IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TO AVOID CONFLICT ING JUDICIAL OPINION AND MULTIPLICITY OF DECISION, ONLY ONE OFFICER HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AND VALIDITY OF TR ANSFER OF JURISDICTION FROM PONDICHERRY TO CHENNAI. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HA S ALREADY DIRECTED THE CIT(APPEALS) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE O F JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT FROM PONDICHERRY TO CHENNAI, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) SHA LL PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE ISSUE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, AS DIREC TED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS FAR AS THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONCERNE D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND R EMAND BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION ER. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION/TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT FROM PONDICH ERRY TO CHENNAI WAS DECIDED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). IN OTHER WORDS, T HE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER SHALL WAIT TILL THE CIT (APPEALS) TAKES A DECISION ONE WAY OR OTHER WITH REGARD TO JURISDICTI ON AND TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT FROM PONDICHERRY TO CHENNAI. 5. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE COMMISSIONER EXCEPT THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AND T HE TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT FROM PONDICHERRY TO CHENNAI. THE ADMINI STRATIVE 6 I.T.(SS) A. NO.99/MDS/2007 COMMISSIONER SHALL PASS THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW AFTER THE CIT(APPEALS) DISPOSES OF THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO J URISDICTION AND TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT FROM PONDICHERRY TO CHENNAI. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17 TH OF APRIL, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD//- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (. !' ) ( . . . ) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3 /DATED, THE 17 TH APRIL, 2015. KRI. , */45 651/ /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 2. *+'( /RESPONDENT 3. . 7/ /CIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI-II, CHENNAI 4. 58 */ /DR 5. 9: ; /GF.