9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le -2(3), Chennai." 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s 143(3)/147/263/144 of the Act on 24.03.2014 without any jurisdiction. The ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to complete the assessment in Kolkata, since the jurisdiction over the assessee was duly transferred u/s 127 to ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai, CIT Central-II, Chennai on 15.03.2013, therefore, assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [ITO,Wd-1(4), Kolkata], dated 24.03.2014 u/s 143(3)/147/263/144 of the Act is without jurisdiction and therefore should be quashed. 4. On the other hand, ld DR for the Revenue submitted before the Bench that for administrative convenience the assessment was framed by Income Tax officer Kolkata . The ld DR for the Revenue filed written submissions before the Bench, the important part of the written submission is reproduced below: "The order of Calcutta High court in the case of Ramshila Enterprises (P) Ltd is not applicable in the instant case. In the said case, the jurisdiction of the [Ramshila Enterprises (P) Ltd] was transferred on 03.09.2012 much before the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is predecessor-in-office by his order dated 3rd September, 2012 with immediate effect. Mr. Podder contended that CIT, Kolkata-II, Kolkata thereafter had no longer any jurisdiction left with him to be exercised in respect of the return or returns filed by the assessee or assessments made. He submitted that the exercise of power was not only ex parte, without notice, but was also without jurisdiction. He drew our attention to the letter dated 18th March, 2013 received by his client from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, which is a notice under section 143(2) pertaining to the assessment year 2012-2013. He submitted that the order dated 3rd September, 2012 transferring jurisdiction to a ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-XIX, Kolkata had already become operative and was also acted upon. Therefore, CIT, Kolkata-II, Kolkata could not have exercised jurisdiction. The impugned order passed by him is altogether without jurisdiction and is, therefore, a nullity. 16. He drew our attention to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pandurang and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1986) 4 SCC 436 for the proposition that even a right order by a wrong forum is a nullity. In the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue submitted that the transfer order itself indicates that jurisdiction of ITO, WD-4(1), Kolkata was transferred to SCIT/DCIT Central Circle XIX, Kolkata, which is at page 584. 19. The jurisdiction of the CIT remained unchanged. In other words, it is the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, which was changed. The jurisdiction of the appellate authority remained unchanged. Therefore, the order under challenge was validly passed by the CIT. 20. Mr. Poddar, in reply, drew our attention to the explanation appended to section 127 of the Income-tax Act which reads as follows:- "In section 120 and this section, the word "case", in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date or such order or direction in respect of any year." 21. He submitted that the transfer of a case would mean all pending and future proceedings. He submitted that even the learned Tribunal has conceded that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24. The actual transfer of files may have taken place on 29th July, 2013 but admitted position is that a notice under Section 143(2) by the transferee-assessing officer was issued on 18th March, 2013. The existence of files does not confer the jurisdiction when the same has validly been transferred and also acted upon. The jurisdiction over the subject-matter has to be conferred by law. The jurisdiction in this case had been transferred by the order dated 3rd September, 2012 by no other than the CIT Kolkata- II, Kolkata himself. Once that was done CIT Kolkata - II, Kolkata lost the seisin over the matter. He became 'functus officio'. 25. Reference in this regard may be made to the Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, 7th Edition, Page 1085 wherein the following meaning has been expressed:- "FUNCTUS OFFICIO. An arbitrator or referee cannot be said to be functus officio when he has given a decision which is held to be no decision at all (Davies v Howe Spinning Co Ltd, 27 B.W.C.C. 207). Where a judge has made an order for a stay of execution which has been passed and entered, he is functus officio, and neither he nor any other judge of equal jurisdiction has jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Supreme Court in Govt. of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1961 SC 787. That was a case where the question arose whether the Collector has any power to impound an instrument sent to him for adjudication under section 31 of the Stamp Act. The Supreme Court held that under that section the Collector had no such power, as the provision gave him the power only to give his opinion as regards the duty with which in his judgment the instrument was chargeable and when that function was performed by the Collector he became functus officio. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the power to impound only exists when an instrument is produced before judicial officers or other officers performing judicial functions as evidence of any fact to be proved, or before other public officers who have to perform any function in regard to those instruments as, for example, registration. The Supreme Court also approved the decisions in Collector, Ahmednagar v. Rambhau, AIR 1930 Bom 392 (FB); Paiku v. Gaya, ILR (1948) Nag 950 : (AIR 1949 Nag 214) and Panakala Rao v. Kumaraswami, AIR 1937 Mad 763 where the doctrine of functus officio was applied and it was held that the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dure deals with judgment and decree. Rule 1 explains when a judgment is pronounced. Sub-rule (1) provides that the court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in an open court either at once, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the court shall fix a day for that purpose of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. Sub-rule (3) provides that the judgment may be pronounced by dictation in an open court to a shorthand writer [if the Judge is specially empowered (sic by the High Court) in this behalf]. The proviso thereto provides that where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such corrections as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced and form a part of the record. Rule 3 provides that the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open court at the time of pronouncing it and when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to save as provided by Section 152 or on review. Thus, where a judgment is reserved, mere dictation does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
