9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of the same assessee in ITA No. 294, 295, 296, 244 and 245 of 2006 for the above assessment years vide order dated 18.04.2007, whereby the Tribunal has set aside certain issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal took up the matter again for hearing in all the assessment years. One of the issues, which has been set aside was with regard to the question that the ACIT, Agra who issued the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was not vested with the proper jurisdiction. This objection has been rebutted by the AO in the assessment order by observing as under : "It is seen that w.e.f. 1.7.01 the jurisdiction over a case rests with the Addl. /Jt. CIT being Range authority and the various AO posted in the Range hold concurrent jurisdiction over the case falling under the jurisdiction with the Addl. CIT/JCIT. The CIT-II, Agra vide his order F.No.CIT-II/Agra/03-04/Jursd./120 & 124 dt. 21.02.04 assigned concurrent jurisdiction over the cases falling under the AO Cir.4(1), Agra in addition to his own duties to Shri Sampornand, ACIT. The Addl. CIT, Range-4, Agra has allotted the case of the assessee and durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l further orders. Consequently, the Addl. CIT, Range-4, Agra will issue orders regarding the specific work to be assigned to Shri Sampoornanad." Thus, it will be seen from the above that the CIT-II, Agra vide order as reproduced above had also ordered that the Addl. CIT, Range-4, Agra will issue orders regarding the specific work to be assigned to Shri Sampoornand. As per the direction of the CIT-II, Agra, the Addl. CIT, Range-4, Agra passed order F.No.AddI.CIT/R- 4/Scrutiny/03-04/1466 dated 23.1.04, as per which certain cases were assigned to Shri Sampoornand, ACIT(Hq./Admn.). As per this order the case of the appellant is mentioned at S.No.3 which was transferred to Shri Sampornand, ACIT only for AY 2001-02. Thus, it is clear from the order dated 21.1.04 of CIT-II, Agra & order dated 23.1.04 of Addl. CIT, Range-4, Agra that the case of the appellant was transferred to Shri Sampoornand only for the AY 2001-02, whereas Shri Sampoornanand the then ACIT (Hq/Admn.) has issued the notice u/s. 148 to the appellant for the impugned AYs., i.e. 98-99, 99-2000 & 2000-01 for which he did not hold any jurisdiction in view of fact as already stated that ACIT(Hq./Admn.) was specifically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nand. The ld. DR further submitted that the ld. CIT in the same jurisdictional order also directed the Range Addl. CIT-IV, Agra to issue orders for assigning specific work to Shri Sampoornanand. The Addl. CIT, Range-IV passed the jurisdictional order dated 23.01.2004 (PB-11) in pursuance to the directions of the CBDT and CIT-II dated 21.01.2004 and assigned scrutiny assessments of the assessee to him for assessment year 2001-02 apart from having concurrent jurisdiction over the cases of ACIT, Circle 4(1), Agra with immediate effect. The ld. DR, therefore, submitted that Shri Sampoornanand, ACIT (Hq/Admn.) was, thus, having concurrent jurisdiction with the Assessing Officer, Circle 4(1), Agra. He has submitted that Shri Sampoornanand, ACIT while scrutinizing the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2001-02 on the basis of the incriminating material, found that undisclosed income belongs to the assessee which pertains to all the assessment years under appeals and accordingly reopened the assessments for all the assessment years under appeals by issuing notice u/s. 148 on dated 31.03.2004 (PB-136). The ld. DR submitted that since the ACIT, Shri Sampoornanand was having concu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to page 39 of the paper book, in which the Tribunal in this case noted that in the absence of further order vesting jurisdiction over the assessee with ACIT Circle 4(1), Agra, he was not competent to issue notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act and accordingly, it was held that the proceedings u/s. 148 were beyond the jurisdiction and were not valid. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions : (i). Decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. and Others vs. ACIT, 246 ITR 133 (Cal.), in which it was held - "Concurrent jurisdiction means that a subordinate authority can deal with the matter equally with any superior authority in its entirety so that either one of such jurisdictions can be invoked. It cannot be construed as concurrent jurisdiction when one part of the assessment will be dealt with by one superior officer and the other part will be dealt with by a subordinate officer." In this case, the Hon'ble High Court considering the notification found that excessive authority was given to the ACIT. Therefore, it was held that notification had to be modified while considering the writ petition. (ii). Order of ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , ACIT(Hq./Admn.), having concurrent jurisdiction over the cases of ACIT, Circle 4(1), Agra with immediate effect. It, therefore, appears that the ld. CIT(A) misunderstood both the jurisdictional orders passed by the ld. CIT-II, Agra and Addl. CIT, Range-IV, Agra while quashing the reassessment orders. The ld. CIT-II, Agra in his jurisdictional order u/s. 120 of the IT Act directed that Shri Sampoornanand, ACIT will have concurrent jurisdiction in respect of the cases falling in the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer Circle 4(1), Agra. The language used in the jurisdictional order thus, cannot be given different meaning and cannot be interpreted in different way to quash the reassessment proceedings. Once concurrent jurisdiction has been assigned by the CIT u/s. 120 of the IT Act to Shri Sampoornanand with Assessing Officer, Circle 4(1), then Shri Sampoornanand will be having jurisdiction over all the cases of Assessing Officer Circle 4(1), Agra in addition to other work already assigned to him or would be assigned to him later on. Admittedly, Shri Sampoornanand issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act in the case of the assessee on 31.03.2004. Thus, Shri Sampoornanand was having jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of such area, he shall have jurisdiction- (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 situate within the area, or where his business or profession is carried on in more places than one, if the principal place of his business or profession is situate within the area, and (b) in respect of any other person residing within the area. (2) Where a question arises under this section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner; or where the question is one relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Board or by such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his circle as per the jurisdictional order passed by CIT-II and Addl. CIT range-IV. Therefore, he was satisfied that the claim of the assessee was incorrect challenging the jurisdiction of ACIT, who has issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Hindustan Transport Co. vs. IAC of Income-tax reported in (1991) 189 ITR 326, considering the objections to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer held that objection cannot be raised after the assessment is completed. In this case, the assessment order under consideration of the assessment year 1985-86 and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court considering the provisions of section 124 of the IT Act considered the following points : (i). What is the nature of the power of transfer conferred by the Act ? and (ii). How the Act itself views a defect of the nature involved in the present case ? 6.3 We may mention that the provisions of section 124 as were applicable in assessment year 1985-86 are almost similar to the provisions contained in section 124 of the IT Act after amendment, which are applicable to the present case. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court further held -(page 331) "Being an enactment aimed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not brought anything on record to show that the concurrent jurisdiction vested in Shri Sampoornanand was withdrawn by CIT concerned on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act. Therefore, Shri Sampoornanand having been authorized to deal with the subject matter was vested with the jurisdiction to deal with the matter in issue. Since he found that income escaped assessment for the assessment year under appeals while scrutinizing the return of assessee for subsequent assessment year 2001-02, therefore, he has rightly exercised jurisdiction u/s. 148 of the Act for reopening of assessment u/s. 148. This fact is also supported by the fact that before issuing notice u/s. 148, he had obtained approval of Addl. CIT, Range IV, Agra, otherwise. if Shri Sampoornanand, ACIT had no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee on the date of approval, the ld. Addl. CIT, Range, would not have granted him approval. Since the Assessing Officer, Circle 4(3) passed the assessment order later on and Shri Sampoornanand, ACIT were having concurrent jurisdiction and were exercising their jurisdiction under the same Addl. CIT, range IV, Agra and one of them properly issued notice u/s. 148 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
