1967 (3) TMI 14 - SC - Income Tax

Assessee contended before the Tribunal that the ITO District I(2) was the proper officer to file the appeal not the ITO District VI because he had made the assessment - held that appeal before the Tribunal was filed by a proper person - question is answered in favour of the department

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of section 33(2) read with section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Authority of the Commissioner to nominate the Income-tax Officer to file an appeal.
4. Transfer of case jurisdiction based on the change of assessee's residence.
5. Dissenting views between different High Courts on the interpretation of relevant provisions.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the High Court's decision on Income-tax Reference No. 79 of 1959, concerning the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court had considered facts beyond the statement of the case, which led to a challenge by the appellants on the High Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing new facts and should have requested a supplementary statement of the case if needed.

The interpretation of section 33(2) in conjunction with section 64(2) was crucial in determining whether the Commissioner had the authority to direct a specific Income-tax Officer to file an appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Commissioner could only nominate an Income-tax Officer with jurisdiction over the assessee or the matter. This principle was supported by a previous decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sarkar & Co., highlighting the importance of the definite article 'the' in denoting the relevant Income-tax Officer.

Regarding the transfer of case jurisdiction due to a change in the assessee's residence, the Supreme Court referred to section 64(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Act. It was established that the Income-tax Officer with jurisdiction over the new place of residence of the assessee would acquire jurisdiction. However, the Court clarified that this did not automatically divest the original assessing officer of jurisdiction to complete the case, including any appeals or revisions against the assessment order.

The judgment also addressed dissenting views between High Courts on the Commissioner's authority to direct a specific Income-tax Officer to file an appeal. While the High Court relied on a previous decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Sarkar & Co., it was noted that the present case involved different circumstances where one Income-tax Officer had passed the assessment order, and another had jurisdiction over the assessee. The Supreme Court concluded that the latter Income-tax Officer could be directed by the Commissioner to file the appeal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, answered the question in favor of the department, and decided not to award costs considering the circumstances of the case.