Vijay Kumar Gupta, Chandigarh v. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 135/CHANDI/2013 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 13521514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AFSPG0092F
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 135/CHANDI/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant Vijay Kumar Gupta, Chandigarh
Respondent ACIT, Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 24-03-2014
Next Hearing Date 24-03-2014
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 07-02-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 135 TO 138/CHD/2013 A.YS.: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS THE A.C.I.T. 3007 SECTOR 19-D CENTRAL CIRCLE. CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN : AFSPG0092F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 24.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM THE CAPTIONED BUNCH OF APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) GURGAON DATED 08.11.2012 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ( 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APP EAL IN ALL THE APPEALS. THEREFORE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 135/CHD/2013 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN THE LAW AND ON FACT S IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT AS PER SEARCH SCHEME U/S 153 A OF THE ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PANCHNAMA IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE ORDER SERVED BY THE LD. AO AFTER THE LIMITATION PERIOD IS NULL AND VOID IN THE EYES OF LAW. 2 3. THAT DESPITE DIRECTIONS BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WH ILE RESTORING THE APPEALS FOR FRESH DECISION THE LD. C IT(A) AVOIDED TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE AO BY VI RTUE OF SEC 127 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT CIT(A) IS NOT EMPOWE RED U/S 246A OF THE ACT TO ADJUDICATE ON THE MATTER AND ALSO AVO IDED TO GIVE ANY FINDINGS ON INACTION OF THE LD. AO AS PER SEC 124 O F THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LD. AO HAD SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT TO THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COPY THEREOF IS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASS ESSES. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED COMMON ORDER IN BUN CH OF APPEALS ARISING FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS THE C OPY OF ORIGINAL ORDER IS ATTACHED WITH ONE APPEAL AND WITH REST OF APPEALS ATTESTED COPIES OF ORDER IS ATTACHED. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ALTER OR ADD TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 7. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF T HE LD. AO AND THE SEARCH RECORD OF THE CASE MAY KINDLY BE SUM MONED FOR BETTER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 8. IT IS PRAYED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING BEYOND JUR ISDICTION OF THE LD. AO MAY KINDLY BE ANNULLED AND QUASHED ALONG WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 9. THAT THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY PRAY TO ALLOW THE C OST. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH & SE IZURE OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON 03.09.2004 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 53A OF THE ACT REQUISITIONING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOM E. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY RETURN OF INCOME OR FILE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT TO OBJECT THE JURISDICTION INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING COOPERATED DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT VID E ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 144 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT. IT 3 MAY BE BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT NIL INCOME WAS DETE RMINED IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT Y EARS. 4. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAINST THE INVOKING OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY INVOKED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. AR F OR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE R AISED IN THE PRESET BUNCH OF APPEALS WAS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CROSS OBJECTION NO. 28 ALONGWITH CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN C.O. NOS. 27 29 & THE COMPANY IN C.O. NO. 30/CHD/2008. 6. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE. 7. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER RAISED IN VIEW OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT AND INVOKI NG OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AGAINST THE A SSESSEE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN C.O. NOS. 27 TO 30/CHD/2008 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER OF EVEN DATE HAS HELD AS UNDER : 96. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT PURSUANT TO SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION CARRIED OUT ON 03.09.2004 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UND ER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT ON 06.10.2005 REQUISITIONING THE AS SESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN ONE MONTH OF SERVI CE OF NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CENTRAL CIRC LE CHANDIGARH. VARIOUS REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CHALLENG ING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO INVO KING OF 4 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND NO REPLY ON MERITS WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SEVERAL QUESTIONN AIRES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT NO SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AS HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT TH E SEARCHED PREMISES ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES PROCEEDINGS S HOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT A ND NOT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW THE PANCHNAMA WHICH IS FILED AT P AGE 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE N AME OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA IS MENTIONED AS THE PERSON SE ARCHED ON 3/4.9.2004. 97. OUR ATTENTION WAS FURTHER DRAWN TO THE COMMUNIC ATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED AT PAGE 459 OF THE PAP ER BOOK WHICH AS PER THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS OBJECTION TO INVOKING OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO STATEMENT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA WAS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ONLY STATE MENT OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA WAS RECORDED AND WAS USED FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE THREE PER SONS AND HENCE THE CROSS OBJECTION. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSE SSEE HOWEVER FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUP TA WAS THE BROTHER OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND BOTH OF TH EM WERE THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY NOW KNOWN AS M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. 98. ANOTHER CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A ORIGINATED FROM SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AND SECTION 153A PROVIDES FO R ASSESSMENT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS BASED ON M ATERIAL WITH VALID REPORTS SUPPLIED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER A ND UPON PROPER AND VALID INVESTIGATIONS. THE ASSESSEE QU ESTIONED THE DETAILS OF REASONS AND OCCASIONS TO INITIATE TH E NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE ACT BY THE SAID COMMUNICATION. 99. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IN REPLY POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AT PAGES 105 AND 106 OF THE PAPER B OOK HAS ENCLOSED THE COPY OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT UNDER WHICH THE CIT-I CHANDIGARH HAD TRANSFERRED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI A JAY KUMAR GUPTA FROM RANGE-III CHANDIGARH TO DCIT CENTRAL C IRCLE CHANDIGARH VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.2005. IT WAS POI NTED OUT BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE THAT THERE WAS VALID JURISDICTION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS HIS ORDERS UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 100. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DR FOR T HE REVENUE THAT THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IS NOT APPEALABLE AND THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 101. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STATED THAT FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ANOTHER GROUND AGAINST THE ISSU E OF 5 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AFTER A VALID SEARCH. THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN VAL IDLY ISSUED AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF SEARCH & SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME CANNOT B E THUS QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR FOR T HE REVENUE FURTHER STATED THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT NO PERSON IS ENTITLED TO QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS V ESTING OF JURISDICTION IN THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS AUTOMATIC UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 102. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2008 IN THE CASE OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LT D. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GR OUNDS RAISED IN THE CASE OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND OTH ERS BUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ONLY SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATT ENTION TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMAT ION ACT I.E. ANNEXURE-I IN WHICH IT IS MENTIONED THAT T HE SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAMES OF S/SHRI AJ AY KUMAR GUPTA ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA AND VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND EVEN THE NAMES OF THE SAID PERSONS ARE MENTIONED IN THE PANCHNAMA OF THE PREMISES SEARCHED BY THE INVESTIGATION TEAM. HOWEVER AT S.NO. 7 I.E. I N THE CASE OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. IT HAS BEEN REPO RTED THAT SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDU CTED ON 03.09.2004 AND NO MATERIAL WAS SEIZED/IMPOUNDED. THE SAID ANNEXURE-1 DOES NOT TALK OF ANY SEARCH UPO N THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WAS THEN DRAWN TO PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED UPON M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. ON 03.09.2004. THE LD. AR F OR THE ASSESSEE THEN REFERRED TO THE PANCHNAMA PLACED AT PAGE 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WAS IN THE NAME OF S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND THE PREMISES SEARCHED WERE HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 19D CHANDIGARH. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS ON 31.10.2003 THE NAME OF THE COMPANY M/S VISHN U ASSOCIATES LTD. WAS CHANGED TO M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AND THE NECESSARY INCORPORATION CERTIFICATE WAS ISS UED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES WHICH IS PLACED AT PA GE 114 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THE APPLICATION FILED F OR ALLOTMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION ACCOUNT NUMBER UNDER SEC TION 203A OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE HAD INFORMED THE ASSE SSING OFFICER(TDS) REGARDING THE CHANGE IN THE NAME OF TH E COMPANY COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 115 AND 1 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE SAID COMMUNICATION THE ADDRESS HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS SCO NO. 37 SECTOR 26 MANI MAJRA CHANDIGARH. IT WAS FAIRLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ORIGINALLY THE ADD RESS OF THE COMPANY WAS AT HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 19D 6 CHANDIGARH BUT THE SAME WAS CHANGED TO SECTOR 26 MANI MAJRA CHANDIGARH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO STANDS CHANGED. ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I BUT BECAUSE OF THE CHA NGE IN ADDRESS THE JURISDICTION WAS UNDER COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX-II. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRANSFER ORDERS PASSED ON 30.05.2005 BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH WERE WITHOU T JURISDICTION AS THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II CHANDIGARH. IN THIS REGARD THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THA T ON 19.05.2005 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 BY THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1) CHANDIGARH BUT THE JURISDICT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WITH CIRCLE 4(1) WHICH IN-TURN IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II CHANDIGARH AND HENCE THE TRANSFER ORDERS IN THE CA SE OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. COULD NOT BE PASSED BY TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 CHANDIGARH. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT VARIOUS COMMUNICA TIONS WERE MADE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISING OBJECTIO NS VIS--VIS THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTERS PLACED AT PAGES 371 376 440 AND 441 AND A LSO OBJECTIONS WERE FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX-1 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 104 OF THE PA PER BOOK. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGES 4 & 5 HAS DEALT WITH ALL THE SAID ISSUES. HOWEVER IT WAS STRESSED BY HIM T HAT THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH H AD THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT PRESENT ON T HE GIVEN ADDRESS AND WHEN OUR CASES HAD BEEN TRANSFERR ED TO CIT-II. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH WRONGLY ISSUED THE NOTICE TRANSFERRING T HE JURISDICTION. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120 AND 127 OF THE ACT AND IT WAS POINTED O UT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER TRANSFER RING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT TALK OF THE CAUSE OF TRANSFER OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER BEING ISSUED BY N ON- JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY WAS INVALID AND FURTHER TH E ACTION ON THE COMPANY WAS UNDER SURVEY AND ALSO AS THE COMPANY WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE ADDRESS ON WHICH SEA RCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED AND ALSO BECAUSE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED UPON THE ASSESSEE THE PROCEEDINGS INITIA TED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WERE INVALID. 103. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IN REPLY POINTED OU T THAT PERUSAL OF PAGE 110 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD REFLECT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.01 .2005 WAS ISSUED BY CIRCLE 3(1) CHANDIGARH RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2003-04 AT THE HOME ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. HO USE NO. 3007 SECTOR 9D CHANDIGARH. THE SAID ADDRESS OF T HE COMPANY AND THE WARRANT ISSUED AGAINST THE COMPANY WAS VALID AS SEARCH ON HIS EARLIER ADDRESS WAS DIRECTED TO BE CARRIED ON I.E. THE ADDRESS WHERE IN PAST THE OFFIC E OF THE COMPANY WAS SITUATED AND THERE WAS ASSUMPTION THAT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE TRANSACTIONS WOULD BE AVA ILABLE AT 7 THE SAID ADDRESS. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTH ER POINTED OUT THAT THE SALE DEED DATED 02.04.2003 WAS ALSO RE GISTERED IN THE NAME OF M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. AT HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 19D CHANDIGARH. HE FURTHER STRESSED THAT T HE CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY DOES NOT DISSOLVE THE CO MPANY AND DOES NOT EXTINCT THE COMPANY AS THE PAN NUMBER OF T HE COMPANY REMAINS THE SAME AND THE WARRANT ISSUED IN THE OLD NAME OF THE COMPANY WAS THUS VALID. HE REFERRED T O THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(3) OF THE COMPANIES ACT AN D POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID SECTION RECOGNIZES THE CHANGE IN NAME OF THE COMPANY BUT DOES NOT DISSOLVE THE COMPANY. IN RESP ECT OF THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING THE OR DER UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT T HE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE CHALLENGE TO J URISDICTION WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. 104. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WE SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED AGAINST THE INVOKING OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASES OF S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AS HWANI KUMAR GUPTA AND VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA. SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE I.E. HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 19D CHANDIGARH WERE CARRIED OUT ON 03.09.2004. THE COPY OF THE PANCHNAMA IS PLACED AT PAGES 59 AND 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT THE WARRANT IS ISSUED IN THE CASE OF S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA A SHWANI KUMAR GUPTA M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES VIJAY KUMAR GUP TA. THE WARRANT WAS ISSUED TO SEARCH THE HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 19D CHANDIGARH WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF ALL THE THREE BROTHERS I.E. ASSESSEES BEFORE US. FURTHER SEARCH OF THE LOCKER NO. 10 STATE BANK OF INDIA I NDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I CHANDIGARH BELONGING TO SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA WAS CARRIED OUT ON 4.9.2004 AND 13.09.2004 AN D THE COPIES OF PANCHNAMA ARE PLACED AT PAGES 61 AND 62 O F THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY LOCKE R NO.87 STATE BANK OF INDIA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I CHAND IGARH BELONGING TO SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA SMT. SUMAN GUP TA AND SMT. ROSHAN DEVI WAS ALSO SEARCHED ON 04.09.2004 AN D 05.10.2004 AND THE COPIES OF THE PANCHNAMA ARE PLAC ED AT PAGES 67 AND 68 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ANOTHER LOCKER N O. 55 STATE BANK OF INDIA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I CHAND IGARH BELONGING TO S/SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND VIJAY KUMR GUPTA WAS SEARCHED ON 04.09.2004 AND 13.09.2004 AND COPIES OF THE PANCHNAMA ARE PLACED A T PAGES 73 AND 74 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LOCKER NO. 62 STA TE BANK OF INDIA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I CHANDIGARH BELONGIN G TO SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND SMT. RAJNI GUPTA WAS ALSO SEAR CHED ON 13.09.2004 19.09.2004 AND 05.10.2004 AND THE COPIE S OF THE PANCHNAMA ARE PLACED AT PAGES 79-81 OF THE PAPER BO OK. ANOTHER LOCKER IN STATE BANK OF INDIA BELONGING TO SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA WAS SEARCHED ON 04.09.2004 AND 13.09.2004 AND THE COPIES OF THE PANCHNAMA ARE PLAC ED AT PAGES 86-87 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 CH ANDIGARH VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.2005 IN EXERCISE OF POWERS C ONFERRED UNDER SECTION 127(1) READ WITH SUB-SECTION (3) OF S ECTION 127 THE INCOME TAX ACT TRANSFERRED THE CASES OF THE AS SESSEE FROM RANGE III CHANDIGARH TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH. THE SAID ORDER DATED 3 0.05.2005 IS PLACED AT PAGES 92-93 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LI ST AT SR.NO. 4 TALKS OF TRANSFER OF CASES OF M/S VALCO IN DUSTRIES LTD. EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. AT SR. NO. 5 OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA AT SR.NO. 6 OF SHRI VIJA Y KUMAR GUPTA AND AT SR.NO. 7 OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA. A FTER THE SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH TH E SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF VARIOUS OTHER PERSONS AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2005 WHO IN-TURN WERE LINKED TO THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY NUMBERING 18 THE JURI SDICTION OF THE CASES WAS TRANSFERRED FROM RANGE-III CHANDIGAR H TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIG ARH. 105. SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT AT SCO 37 SECTOR 26 CHANDIGARH I.E. THE PREMI SES OF M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. ON 03.09.2004 AND SEALS WERE PLACED UPON THE CPU FOUND IN THE PREMISES WHICH WERE THEN BROKEN ON 09.09.2004 AND THE COPY OF THE PANCHNAMAS ARE PL ACED AT PAGES 99 TO 101 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2005 TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION TO CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH AT PAGES 105 AND 106 OF THE PAPER BOOK W HICH IS COPY OF THE EARLIER DOCUMENT REFERRED TO BY US FILE D AT PAGES 92 AND 93 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE 102 HAS PLACED THE SEARCH RESULTS AT THE NATIONAL WEBSITE O F THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER WHICH THE JURISDICTION OF CIT CHANDIGARH-I IS STATED TO BE SECTOR 1 TO 25 INDUST RIAL AREA PHASE-I PHASE-II CHANDIGARH AND MANI MAJRA. 106. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA IS THAT THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED ON AT THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE PERSON BUT THE SAID PERS ON WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND CONSEQUENTLY T HE SEARCH INITIATED IN THE CASE WAS NOT VALID AND FURTHER THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS INCORRECT. THE SAID OBJECTION WAS RAISED ONLY IN THE CASE OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND NOT IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUP TA AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA. IT MAY BE PLACED ON RECORD THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA WAS RECORDED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 03.09.2004 AND IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE I T IS PRESUMED THAT SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA WAS AVAILABLE AT THE PR EMISES ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN ANY CASE THERE IS NO REQUI REMENT THAT THE PERSON SEARCHED SHOULD BE PRESENT IN THE SEARCH ED PREMISES. 107. COMING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1) 13 2(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER : 132. (1) WHERE THE [DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR] OR TH E [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] [ OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ] [ OR JOINT DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIONER ] IN CONSEQUENCE OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION HAS REASON TO BELIEV E THAT (A) ANY PERSON TO WHOM A SUMMONS UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 37 OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT 1922 (11 OF 1922) OR UN DER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 131 OF THIS ACT OR A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 22 OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT 1922 OR UNDER SUB -SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OF THIS ACT WAS ISSUED TO PRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED 9 ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS HAS OMITTED OR FAILED TO PRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED SUCH BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY SUCH SUMMONS OR NOTICE OR (B) ANY PERSON TO WHOM A SUMMONS OR NOTICE AS AFOR ESAID HAS BEEN OR MIGHT BE ISSUED WILL NOT OR WOULD NOT PRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS W HICH WILL BE USEFUL FOR OR RELEVANT TO ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE INDIA N INCOME-TAX ACT 1922 (11 OF 1922) OR UNDER THIS ACT OR (C) ANY PERSON IS IN POSSESSION OF ANY MONEY BULL ION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING AND SUCH MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING REPRESENTS EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY INCOME OR PROPERTY [WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OR WOULD NOT BE DISC LOSED] FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT 1922 (11 OF 1922) OR THIS ACT (HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE UND ISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY) [THEN (A) THE [DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR] OR THE [CH IEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] AS THE CASE MAY BE MAY AUTHORISE AN Y [ ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR ] 95 [JOINT DIRECTOR] [JOINT COMMISSIONER] [ASSISTANT DIRECTOR [OR DEPUTY DIREC TOR]] [ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 98 [OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER] OR INCOME-TAX OFFICER]. (B) SUCH [ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR ADDITIONAL COMMISS IONER OR] [JOINT DIRECTOR] OR [JOINT COMMISSIONER] AS THE CASE MAY BE MAY AU THORISE ANY [ASSISTANT DIRECTOR [OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR]] [ASSISTANT COMMISSI ONER [OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER]OR INCOME-TAX OFFICER] (THE OFFICER SO AUTHORISED IN ALL CASES BEING HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AUTHORISED OFFICER) TO] (I) ENTER AND SEARCH ANY [BUILDING PLACE VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT] WHERE HE HAS REASON TO SUSPECT THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT O THER DOCUMENTS MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THI NG ARE KEPT; (II) BREAK OPEN THE LOCK OF ANY DOOR BOX LOCKER SAFE ALMIRAH OR OTHER RECEPTACLE FOR EXERCISING THE POWERS CONFERRED BY C LAUSE (I) WHERE THE KEYS THEREOF ARE NOT AVAILABLE; [(IIA) SEARCH ANY PERSON WHO HAS GOT OUT OF OR IS ABOUT TO GET INTO OR IS IN THE BUILDING PLACE VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT IF TH E AUTHORISED OFFICER HAS REASON TO SUSPECT THAT SUCH PERSON HAS SECRETED ABOUT HIS PER SON ANY SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OTHER DOCUMENTS MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING;] [(IIB) REQUIRE ANY PERSON WHO IS FOUND TO BE IN POS SESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE FOR M OF ELECTRONIC RECORD AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (T) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 2 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 (21 OF 2000) TO AFFORD THE AUTHORISED OF FICER THE NECESSARY FACILITY TO INSPECT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS;] (III) SEIZE ANY SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OTHER DOCUM ENTS MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING FOUND AS A RESUL T OF SUCH SEARCH: [ PROVIDED THAT BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BEING STOCK- IN-TRADE OF THE BUSINESS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SUCH SEARCH SHALL NOT BE SEIZED BUT THE AUTHORISED OFFICER SHALL MAKE A NOTE OR INVENTO RY OF SUCH STOCK-IN-TRADE OF THE BUSINESS;] 10 (IV) PLACE MARKS OF IDENTIFICATION ON ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE EXTRACTS OR COPIES THEREFR OM; (V) MAKE A NOTE OR AN INVENTORY OF ANY SUCH MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING : [ PROVIDED THAT WHERE ANY BUILDING PLACE VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (I) IS WITHIN THE AREA OF JURISDICTION OF AN Y [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] BUT SUCH [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMM ISSIONER] HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C) THEN NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION IT SHALL BE COMPETENT FOR HIM TO EXERCISE THE POWERS UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION IN AL L CASES WHERE HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY DELAY IN GETTING THE AUTHORISATION FROM THE [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH PERS ON MAY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE :] [ PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE OR PRACTICABLE TO TA KE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF ANY VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING AND REM OVE IT TO A SAFE PLACE DUE TO ITS VOLUME WEIGHT OR OTHER PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OR DUE TO ITS BEING OF A DANGEROUS NATURE THE AUTHORISED OFFICER MAY SERVE AN ORDER ON THE OWNER OR THE PERSON WHO IS IN IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OR CONTROL TH EREOF THAT HE SHALL NOT REMOVE PART WITH OR OTHERWISE DEAL WITH IT EXCEPT WITH THE PREVIOUS PERMISSION OF SUCH AUTHORISED OFFICER AND SUCH ACTION OF THE AUTH ORISED OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE SEIZURE OF SUCH VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING UND ER CLAUSE (III):] [ PROVIDED ALSO THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE SECOND PROVISO SHALL APPLY IN CASE OF ANY VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BEING STOCK-IN-TR ADE OF THE BUSINESS:] [ PROVIDED ALSO THAT NO AUTHORISATION SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE ADDITI ONAL DIRECTOR OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR JOINT DIRECTOR OR JOI NT COMMISSIONER ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 UNLESS HE HAS BEEN EMP OWERED BY THE BOARD TO DO SO.] [(1A) WHERE ANY [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER ] IN CONSEQUENCE OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION HAS REASON TO SUSPEC T THAT ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OTHER DOCUMENTS MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN OFFICER HAS BEEN AUTHORISED BY THE [DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR] OR ANY OTHER [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMI SSIONER] OR [ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER] [OR JOINT DIRE CTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIONER] TO TAKE ACTION UNDER CLAUSES (I) TO (V) OF SUB-SECT ION (1) ARE OR IS KEPT IN ANY BUILDING PLACE VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT NOT ME NTIONED IN THE AUTHORISATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) SUCH [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] MAY NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION AUTH ORISE THE SAID OFFICER TO TAKE ACTION UNDER ANY OF THE CLAUSES AFORESAID IN RESPEC T OF SUCH BUILDING PLACE VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT.] 108. READING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AUTHORITIES IN CONSE QUENCE OF THE INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION WHERE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS OR WOULD VIOLATE THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN CLAUSES (A) TO (C) UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE A CT THEN THE OFFICER SO AUTHORIZED IN ALL CASES WOULD BE ENTITLE D TO ENTER AND SEARCH ANY BUILDING PLACE VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT WHERE HE HAS REASON TO SUSPECT THAT SUCH BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OTHER DOCUMENTS MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE KEPT. HE IS ALSO AUTHORIZED TO BREAK-OPEN THE LOCK OF ANY DOOR BOX LOCKER SAFE ALMIRAH ET C. FOR 11 EXERCISING THE POWERS AS CONFERRED BY CLAUSE (I) WH ERE KEYS THEREOF WERE NOT AVAILABLE. ANOTHER POWER ENSHRINE D ON THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER IS TO SEARCH ANY PERSON WHO HAS GOT OUT OR IS ABOUT TO GET INTO ANY OR IS IN ANY BUILDING PLA CE VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT WHERE THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER H AS REASON TO SUSPECT THAT SUCH PERSON HAS SECRETED UPON HIS PERS ON ANY SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OTHER DOCUMENTS MONEY BULL ION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ETC. 109. ANOTHER AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE AUTHORIZED OFFI CER IS WITH REGARD TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS M AINTAINED IN THE FORM OF ELECTRONIC RECORD AND HE IS AUTHORIZ ED UNDER THE ACT TO INSPECT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUM ENTS AS PER CLAUSE (IIB) TO SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT. AN AUTHORIZED OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO SEIZE ANY SUCH BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OTHER DOCUMENTS MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUA BLE ARTICLE OR THING FOUND AS A RESULT OF SUCH SEARCH. WHERE S UCH BULLION JEWELLERY ARTICLE OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THI NG IS THE STOCK-IN- TRADE OF THE BUSINESS FOUND AS A RESULT O F SEARCH THEN SUCH ARTICLES WOULD NOT BE SEIZED BY THE AUTHO RIZED OFFICER BUT HE SHALL MAKE A NOTE OF THE INVENTORY OF SUCH STOCK-IN-TRADE OF THE BUSINESS. HE IS ALSO AUTHORI ZED TO MAKE A NOTE OR ANY INVENTORY OF ANY MONEY BULLION JEWE LLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE FOUND AND ALSO PLACE MARKS O F IDENTIFICATION ON ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOC UMENTS. 110. THE PROVISO UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT PR OVIDES THAT WHERE ANY BUILDING PLACE VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (I) IS WITHIN THE AREA OF JUR ISDICTION OF ANY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER BUT SUCH CHI EF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER HAS NO JURISDICTION OV ER SUCH PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) (B) OR (C) THEN NOT- WITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 120 THE N SUCH CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER HAVING NO JURISD ICTION SHALL BE COMPETENT TO EXERCISE THE POWERS UNDER THI S SUB- SECTION IN ALL CASES WHERE HE HAS REASON TO BELIEV E THAT ANY DELAY IN GETTING THE AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER HAVING JURISDICTION OV ER SUCH PERSON MAY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E. 111. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION AGAINS T ANY PERSON CAN BE CARRIED OUT BY ANY AUTHORIZED OFFICER WHERE HE HAS INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION AND HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITI ONS IN CLAUSE (A) (B) OR (C) OF SECTION 132(1) THEN SUCH PERSON IS AUTHORIZED BY THE AUTHORITIES TO ENTER AND SEARCH A NY BUILDING PLACE VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT. THE POWER TO S EARCH HAS BEEN GIVEN NOT ONLY TO SEARCH ANY BUILDING OR PLACE BUT ALSO TO SEARCH ANY VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT WHERE THERE IS A REASON TO SUSPECT THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OTHER DOCUME NTS MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE KEPT BY SEARCHED PERSON. FURTHER POWER IS ALSO GIVEN TO SEARCH ANY PERSON WHO IS GETTING OUT OF OR ABOUT TO GET IN OR IS IN ANY BUILDING PLACE VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT . THUS THE SAID POWER TO SEARCH BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER IS W IDE AND IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE KNOWN ADDRESS OF A PERSON TO BE SEARCHED. THE SEARCH IS CARRIED OUT IN ORDER TO DI SCOVER SUCH 12 BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OTHER DOCUMENTS MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH A PLACE WHERE THE SAME CAN BE FOUND. SUCH EXERCISE OF POWE R IS THUS ON BOTH THE KNOWN OR UN-KNOWN ADDRESSES OF A PARTIC ULAR PERSON IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT SEARCH TO DISCOVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DOCUMENTS OR OTHER ARTICLES OR THINGS INCL UDING MONEY JEWELLERY ETC. BELONGING TO SUCH PERSON/S. 112. FURTHER THE PROVISO UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF T HE ACT VERY CLEARLY LAYS DOWN THAT SUCH EXERCISE OF THE POWER T O SEARCH CAN BE CARRIED OUT BY ANY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER WHETHER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE P ERSON OR NOT BUT WITHIN HIS AREA OF JURISDICTION WHERE SUCH BUILDING PLACE VESSEL VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT IS EXISTING. TH E SAID POWER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO AUTHORIZE SEARCH TO ANY CHIEF COM MISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER NOT-WITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 120 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 113. NOW COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF SHRI AJ AY KUMAR GUPTA THE WARRANT OF SEARCH WAS IN THE NAME OF SHR I AJAY KUMAR GUPTA ALONGWITH SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 59 AND 60 OF THE PAPER BOO K. THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON 3 & 4 TH SEPTEMBER 2004 AT HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 19D CHANDIGARH. MERELY BECAUSE O NE OF THE PERSONS SEARCHED WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE GIVEN TIME DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE SEARCH AS THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS UND ER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT ARE NOT PERSON SPECIFIC BUT PLACE SPECIFIC. THE WARRANT IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS ISSUED TO SEARC H HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 9D CHANDIGARH WHICH IN SOME-WAY W AS CONNECTED TO SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA SHRI ASHWANI KU MAR GUPTA M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR G UPTA. ADMITTEDLY THE THREE PERSONS SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA ARE BROTHE RS AND WERE DIRECTORS OF M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. AND WE RE RESIDING AT THE SAID ADDRESS. EVEN THE SAID COMPAN Y INITIALLY HAD ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 19D CHANDIGARH. ONCE THE SEARCH IS IN RESPECT OF THE P REMISES AND NOT PERSON SPECIFIC THEN IN SUCH CASES IT CANNOT B E HELD THAT BECAUSE ONE OF THE PERSON WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE GI VEN TIME OF SEARCH CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE NOT BEEN SEARCHED AS THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF PRESENCE. IN ANY CASE THE ASSESS EE HAD SOUGHT INFORMATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION A CT AND THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE DEPARTMENT VID E LETTER DATED 23.10.2007 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 31 TO 54 OF THE PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A-1 WHEREIN VARIOUS PERSONS HAD APPLIED FOR SIMILAR INFORMATION. THE DEPARTMEN T IN REPLY HAD SUBMITTED THAT SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON SHRI A JAY KUMAR GUPTA SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA M/S VISHNU ASSOCIA TES AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA AS MENTIONED IN S.NO. 1 ON 03.09.2004 AND THE COPY OF PANCHNAMA HAS ALREADY BE EN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER IT IS MENTIONED IN THE SAID ANNEXURE-1 THAT SEARCH WARRANT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR VARIOUS DATES TO SEARCH THE DIFF ERENT LOCKERS IN THE NAME OF DIFFERENT PERSONS AT S.NO. 2 TO 6 WERE ISSUED AND COPY OF THE PANCHNAMA HAS ALREADY BEEN R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID ANNEXURE IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRI ED UPON 13 M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AT SCO NO. 37 SECTOR 16 CHANDIGARH. SO IN THE SAID COMMUNICATION THERE A RE TWO SETS OF INFORMATION ONE IN RESPECT OF THE SEARCH ON DIF FERENT PERSONS INCLUDING SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA SHRI ASHWA NI KUMAR GUPTA M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES AND SHRI VIJAY K UMAR GUPTA AND DIFFERENT LOCKERS IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAME AND ALSO SURVEY ON THE OFFICE PREMISES OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRI ES LTD. 114. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO MER IT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPT A. WE HOLD THAT THE SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER S PURSUANT TO WARRANT ISSUED IN THE NAMES OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR G UPTA SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA AT HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 19D CHANDIGA RH WAS VALIDLY CONDUCTED AND PANCHNAMA TO THE EFFECT WAS I SSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COPY OF WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE. PURSUANT TO THE SAID SEARCH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTI ON 132 OF THE ACT ON DIFFERENT PERSONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE NOTI CE REQUISITIONING THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES TO FURNISH T HEIR INDIVIDUAL RETURNS OF INCOME AS SEARCH HAD BEEN CAR RIED ON AT THEIR KNOWN ADDRESS ON FOUR DIFFERENT PERSONS AS ME NTIONED IN THE PANCHNAMA DATED 3/4.09.2004 I.E. S/SHRI AJAY KU MAR GUPTA ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES A ND VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA WAS NOT PRES ENT AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THEN THE PROCEE DINGS IN HIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53A OF THE ACT. THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AND WE UPHOLD THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA ASHWANI KUMAR GUP TA AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA. 115. THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REG ARDING INVOKING OF JURISDICTION BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UN DER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CENTRAL C IRCLE. 116. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT TH E SAID JURISDICTION WAS VALIDLY TRANSFERRED FROM RANGE III CHANDIGARH TO THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH BY AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127(1) READ WITH SECTION 127(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.05.2005 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 105 AND 106. T HE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED ONLY TWO OBJECTIONS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(4) OF THE ACT AND 127 OF THE ACT. FOR UNDERSTANDING THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE OF JURISD ICTION LET US GO THROUGH THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROVISION S DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE : 120. (1) INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES SHALL EXERCISE ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON OR AS THE CA SE MAY BE ASSIGNED TO SUCH AUTHORITIES BY OR UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH DIRECT IONS AS THE BOARD MAY ISSUE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCT IONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THOSE AUTHORITIES. (2) THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BOARD UNDER SUB-SECTION(1 ) MAY AUTHORIZE 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. 14 (3)IN ISSUING THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTIONS(1) AND (2) THE BOARD OR OTHER INCOME TAX AUTHORITY AUTHORIZED BY IT MAY HAV E REGARD 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 IF CASES (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 CONDI TIONS RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED THEREIN - (A) AUTHORIZE ANY DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR TO PERFORM SUCH FUNCTIONS OF ANY OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY AS MAY BE ASSIGNED TO HI M BY THE BOARD; (B) EMPOWER THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIO NER 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 CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES SHALL BE EXERCISED OR PERFORMED BY A [JOINT] COMMISSIONER [OR A [JOINT] DIRECTOR] AND WHERE ANY ORDER IS MADE UNDER THIS CLAUSE REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR IN ANY RULE MADE THEREUND ER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REFERENCES TO SUCH [JOINT ] COMMISSION ER [OR [JOINT]DIRECTOR] BY WHOM THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS ARE TO BE EXERCISED OR PERFORM ED UNDER SUCH ORDER AND ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRING APPROVAL OR SANCTIO N 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 S AME CLASS) TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM CONCURRENTLY THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT O F ANY AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES; AND WHERE SUCH POWERS AND FUNCTIONS ARE EXERCISED AND PERFORMED CO NCURRENTLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES ANY AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK A MONGST THEM SHALL EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY A MONGST THEM MAY DIRECT AND FURTHER REFERENCES IN ANY OTHER PROVISION 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 SANCTIO N 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 NOTIF ICATION 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 PERSONS THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY EXERCISING AND PERFORMING THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE SAID PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS SHALL BE SUCH A UTHORITY AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTIFICATION.] [ JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS. 124. (1) WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OR SUB- SECTION(2) OF SECTION 120 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S 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 BUSINES S OR PROFESSION IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIED ON HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS S ITUATE 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 T O WHETHER AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON THE QUESTION SHA LL BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSION ER OR WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFER ENT DIRECTOR GENERALS OR CHIEF 15 COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS BY THE DIRECTORS GE NERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSIONERS CONCERNED OR IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGRE EMENT BY THE BOARD OR BY SUCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIO NER 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 ASSESSING OFFICER- (A) WHERE HE HAS MADE A RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 139 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED W ITH A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR A FTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; (B) WHERE HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN AFTER THE EXP IRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 142 OR UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 144 TO SHOW CAUSE WHEY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST6 OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. (4)--------------------- (5)--------------------- 127. (1) THE DIRECTOR GENERA OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER MAY AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D IN THE MATTER WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO AND AFTER RECORDING HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO TRANSFER ANY CASE FROM ONE OR MORE ASSESSING OFFICERS SUBORDINATE TO HIM ( WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASS ESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDICTION) ALSO SUBORDINATE T O HIM. (2) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICE RS FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TO BE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS TO WHOM THE CASE IS TO BE TRANSFERRED ARE NOT SUBORDINATE TO THE SAME DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF C OMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER - (A)------------------------ (B)------------------------ (3) NOTHING IN SUB-SECTION(1) OR SUB-SECTION(2) SHA LL BE DEEMED TO REQUIRE ANY SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO BE GIVEN WHERE THE TRANSFER IS FROM ANY ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS(WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONCURRENT JURISDI CTION) TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICERS (WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT CONC URRENT JURISDICTION) AND THE OFFICES OF ALL SUCH OFFICERS ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY LO CALITY OR PLACE. (4) THE TRANSFER OF A CASE UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OR SUB-SECTION(2) MAY BE MADE AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SHALL NOT RENDER NECE SSARY THE RE-ISSUE OF ANY NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ASSESSIN G OFFICERS FROM WHOM THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED. 117. UNDER SECTION 124 OF THE ACT THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WHERE IT IS L AID DOWN THAT BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTIONS OR ORDER ISSUED UN DER SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION OVER ANY AREA OR WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA THEN HE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS O R PROFESSION WITHIN THE AREA AND WHERE HE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS IN ONE OR MORE PLACES THEN IF THE PRINCIP AL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS SITUATED WITHIN THE SAID AREA AND IN RE SPECT OF ANY PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE AREA. THE QUESTION OF T HE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PERSON BY ANY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER AND WHERE THE ASSE SSEE IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DI FFERENT 16 DIRECTOR GENERALS OR CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISS IONERS THEN BY THE CONCERNED DIRECTOR GENERAL CHIEF COMMI SSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AND IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT T HEN BY THE BOARD OR ANY PERSON NOMINATED BY BOARD. UNDER SUB-S ECTION (3) TO SECTION 124 IT IS LAID DOWN THAT ANY ASSESS EE IS ENTITLED TO CALL QUESTION ON THE JURISDICTION OF ANY ASSESSI NG OFFICER WHERE HE HAS MADE THE RETURN OF INCOME OR WAS SERVE D WITH ANY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OR 115WE(2) OR SECT ION 143(2) OR AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EAR LIER AND IN CASE HE HAS NOT MADE ANY RETURN OF INCOME THEN AFT ER THE EXPIRY OF TIME ALLOWED UNDER THE RESPECTIVE SECTION S FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME OR THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. SUB SECTION (4) TO SECTION 124 PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE CALLS IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER THEN IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECT NESS OF THE CLAIM SHALL REFER THE MATTER FOR DETERMINATION UND ER SUB- SECTION (2) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE. THE ASS ESSEE HAS OBJECTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOLLOWE D THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 124(4) OF THE ACT . PERHAPS THE ASSESSEE IS REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 124(3) UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO LODGE THE OBJECTIONS IF ANY REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SO CALLED OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED AT PAGE 459 OF THE PAPER BOOK READS AS UNDER : NOVEMBER 14 2005 WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE SCO. 48-49 TOP FLOOR SECTOR 1 7-A CHANDIGARH. SUBJECT : NOTICES U/S 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1 961-RE KIND ATT. HON'BLE SHREE V.K.CHOPRA. THE ASSTT. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF INDIA. IANDIG ARH. HONBLE SIR. 1. THIS IS WITH REGARD TO YOUR LETTERS CONTAINING S UBJECT NOTICES DATED 06.10.2005 DELIVERED BY HAND ON 18.10.2005 WE OFFER TO SUBMIT RESPECTFULLY AS UNDER IT IS IN VIW OF ALL THE RELEVANT & APPLICABLE VARIO US PROVISIONS OF LAW ACT & LAW RELATING TO FINANCE REVENUE COMMERCE V ARIOUS TAXATIONS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS / CHAPTERS RULES ETC. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EVIDENCE ACT. LAW OF LIMITATIONS. RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. RIGHTS & REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE VARIOUS PROVI SIONS OF LAW AND 17 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW GUIDELINES NOTIFICATION'S INSTRUCTIONS PUBLIC NOTICES CIRCULARS PRACTICE PROCEDURE PRINCIPALS... IT IS IN VIEW OF THESE APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS OF LA W THAT THE SUBJECT NOTICES M YOUR LETTERS ARE SILENT AND NON- SPEAKING AS TO SAY THAT; WHY THESE NOTICES ARE ISSUED TO US WHAT .ARE THE DETAILS OF REASON'S AND THE OCCASION COSEQUENCIES TO INITIATE SUCH NOTICES BY THIS PUBLI C OFFICE THAT UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY OF LAW & PROCEDURE THE NOTICES CAME TO ARISE CONTAINING SUCH INSTRUCTIONS TO FILE AGAIN THE RETURN'S FOR MANY PREVIOUS YEARS IT IS ALSO SILENT THAT 'HOW AND WHEN' YOUR GOOD OF FICE ASUMED SUCH JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICES U/S 153A OF THE ACT. AND THE EVIDENCE/ SUPPORTING DOCUMENT FACTS GIVING RISE TO 'HOW & WHEN' THE JURISDICTION IS ASUMED TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U'S 153A OF THE ACT IS UNSUPPORTED ALONGWIT H THE NOTICES. THAT BESIDES THE MISSING FACTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION I N THE NOTICES THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE LIMITATIONS AUT HORITIES IN THE LAW FOR ISSUASNCE OF SUCH NOTICES. WHILE ISSUING THE LETTERS CONTAINING SUCH NOTICES I .E. THE CLEAR ATTEMPT TO INITIATE SUCH PROVISIONS OF THE AC T. EVEN THE BASIC PRINCIPALS OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LAW HAS BEEN COMPLETE LY IGNORED. NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT LICATION OF MIND THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASONS FOR ISSUE OF SU CH NOTICES. AND NOR THERE WERE ANY REASONS FOR SELF - EXCEEDING AND SELF-ADOPTION OF JURISDICTION ILLEGA LLY BY MISUSE OF PUBLIC MACHINERY. THAT IN VIEW O F THE AFORESAID PATENT DEFICIENCIES AS PER LAW AND FACTS THE NOTICES ISSUED IN THE LETTERS BY YOUR OFFICE F AILS BEING ILLEGAL WITHOUT JURISDICTION FACTS AND WITHOUT AN Y CAUSE OF ACTION AS PER LAW AND OTHER GROUNDS ARE THUS VOID UNSUSTAINABLE AND NON-EST IN EYES OF LAW. A ND AS SUCH REPLY TO YOUR AFORESAID LETTERS AND NO TICES STANDS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 2. HOWEVER IRRESPECTIVE TO THE FACT THAT THE LETT ERS/NOTICES STANDS DISPOSED OFF WE KEEP OUR RIGHT RESERVE TO AGITATE & CLAIM AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF THE ILLE GAL NOTICES BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES UNDE R THE LAW. ALL RIGHTS AVAILABLE IN THE LAW ARE RESERVED. 3. WE FURTHER TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INFORM THAT BEING LAW ABIDING RESPECTABLE CITIZEN ARE FILING ALL REGULAR TAX RETURNS ON RECORDS BEFORE JURISDICTIO NAL ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWING TRUE INCOME TO BEST OF INFORMATION AND ARE ALREADY FINAL. AT THE SAME TIME WE DEPRECATE THE PRACTICE OF ARM TWISTING BY THE H IGHLY REPUTED PUBLIC OFFICE IN THE MANNER WE RECEIVED N OTICES FROM HIS EXCELLENCY SH. R.S. MEHTA THE ACIT 3(1) CHANDIGARH WITHOUT PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY ON REG ULAR YEARLY BASIS FOR SCRUTINY IN CASE OF VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AND REPORTED THE MATTER OF MALAFID E HARASSMENTS TO THE MINISTRY AND THE HON'BLE CHIE F COMMISSIONER IT CHANDIGARH FOR NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE SAID INDIVIDUAL FOR MISUSE OF PUBLIC MACHINERY AND PUBLIC OFFICE. IT IS LEARNT THAT AS PER PRACTICE IN THIS WORTHY CI RCLE THE CASES OF PARTIES WITH HIGH DEGREE OF CRIM INAL REVENUE OFFENCES ALONE ARE TRIED AND IF THAT IS TH E FACT THEN KINDLY NOTE THAT WE REFUSE TO SIT AMON G THE CLASS OF THOSE ESTABLISHED DEFAULTERS IN THE LAW. U NLESS USING THE JURISDICTION IF AVAILABLE THE CAR EFUL & PURE EXAMINATION OF GROUNDS FACTS/EVIDENCE VALI D LEGAL REASONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RECOMMENDS A STRONG CASE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW ACT'S. PROVISIONS AND TRIAL: OTHERWISE KINDLY NOTE THA T FOR ANY HARSH MALAFIDE FORCEFUL OR UNWARRANTED ATTEMP T AND FAILURE OF PROCEEDINGS IN LEGAL TEST WILL ENTITLE US TO BE RELIEVED. OR IF IT WERE PROVED TO SATISFACTION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE LAWFUL WE ASSURE THE COOPERATION TO BEST PERMISSIBLE BY PROT ECTING OUR LEGAL RIGHTS. 18 JAI HIND THANKING YOU YOURS FAITHFULLY A.K.GUPTA FOR VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. HO. SR-37 SECTOR-26 M.MARG CHANDIGARH COPY TO: CBDT 118. PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS N OT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC OBJECTION BUT REFERRED TO VARIOUS OTHE R LAWS OTHER THAN THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO REFER TO ONLY IN COME TAX LAW BECAUSE INCOME TAX IS A SPECIAL LAW AND THE PROVISI ONS OF OTHER LAWS MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE. IN RESPONSE TO TH IS QUERY THE ASSESSEE HAS REPEATED THE EARLIER REPLY. EVEN BEFORE US HE SAID THAT THE OBJECTION AGAINST JURISDICTION MAY BE TAKEN AS PER THE LETTER DATED 14.11.2005 ALREADY REPRODUCED HERE ABOVE. 119. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T RAISED ANY SPECIFIC OBJECTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 12 4(3) WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME OF 30 DAYS. THEREFORE THE ASS ESSEE CANNOT AGITATE THIS ISSUE LATER ON. WE MAY FURTHER POINT OUT THAT ASSESSEE IS CONTINUOUSLY STRESSING ON THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 124(4). ROLE OF SECTION 124(4) COMES INTO PLAY ONL Y AFTER ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS OBJECTIONS UNDER SECTION 124 (3) OF THE ACT. 120. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT ITS RES IDENTIAL ADDRESS AND HIS JURISDICTION WAS UNDER RANGE-III C HANDIGARH. FURTHER IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SEVERAL REPRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEV ER THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY NO ACTION TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE JURI SDICTION VESTED WITHIN DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH BY A N ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGA RH DATED 30.05.2005 IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 127(1 ) READ WITH SECTION 127(3) OF THE ACT. UNDER SECTION 127(1 ) OR 127(2) THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DY. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER MAY PROVIDE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD BEFORE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION OF TRANSFE RRING THE CASE FROM ONE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANOTHER ASSESSIN G OFFICER. HOWEVER SUB SECTION (3) TO SECTION 127 OF THE ACT OVERRIDES THE PROVISIONS IN SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2 ) TO PROVIDE THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WOULD BE GIVEN TO AN ASSESSEE B EFORE TRANSFER OF HIS CASE WHERE THE TRANSFER IS FROM AN ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE OFFI CES OF ALL SUCH OFFICERS ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY LOCALI TY OR PLACE. 19 IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING ASSESSED WITH RANGE-III CHANDIGARH WHICH IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF CHANDIGARH AND HIS CASE S WERE BEING TRANSFERRED TO DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGA RH WHICH IS AGAIN SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY BY AN ORDER PASS ED UNDER SECTION 127(3) OF THE ACT IN VIEW THEREOF WHERE TH E TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION WAS FROM RANGE-III CHANDIGARH TO DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH. THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF PR OVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE OR DER UNDER SECTION 127(1) READ WITH SECTION 127(3) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN TRANSFERRING T HE CASE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION IN THE SAME CITY THEN THER E IS NO REQUIREMENT AS PER THE ACT TO PROVIDE ANY OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING SUCH TRANSFER . IN VIEW THEREOF WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 121. IN ANY CASE THE ISSUE OF TRANSFER OF JURISDIC TION IS NOT APPEALABLE AND THE REMEDY LIES ELSEWHERE AND THE AS SESSEE CAN AVAIL THE SAME IF ASSESSEE IS SO ADVISED. THE HON' BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN SMT. JASWINDER KAUR KOONER VS CIT IN 291 ITR 80 (P&H) HAD HELD AS UNDER : SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT IS CO NFINED TO DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND LIABILIT Y TO TAX. THE OFFICER TO WHOM JURISDICTION IS TRANSFERRED AND WHO DERIVES JURISDICTION FROM SUCH AN ORDER CANNOT QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF SUCH AN ORDER. IF THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER OF TRANSFER THE REMEDY OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO CHALLENGE SUCH AN ORDER IN INDEPENDE NT PROCEEDINGS EITHER BEFORE THE HIGHER ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES AS PER THE ACT OR IN ANY INDEPENDENT PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF WRIT PETITION OR OTHERWISE. IF NO SUCH CHALLENGE IS MADE AT THE INITIAL STAGE THE IS SUE CANNOT BE RAISED IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSE E HAVING NOT RAISED THE OBJECTION AS TO THE JURISDICTION AT THE APPROPR IATE TIME BEFORE THE AO CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE IN APPE AL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 122. WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR ISSUE OF INVOKING OF J URISDICTION AND PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 124 OF THE AC T AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB URBAN DEV ELOPMENT AUTHORITY MOHALI (ITA NOS. 762/CHD/2007 ACIT VS P UNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MOHALI A.Y 2003-04 IT A NO. 759/CHD/2008 PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MO HALI VS ACIT A.Y. 2004-05 ITA 765/CHD/2008 DCIT VS PUN JAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MOHALI A.Y. 2004-05 AN D OTHERS AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2013 HELD A S UNDER : 34 ONE MORE ASPECT WAS HOTLY CONTESTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAD POWER TO ADJUDIC ATE THE ISSUE REGARDING EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION. MA IN SUBMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT EVEN AFTER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF NATION AL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. (SUPRA) THE ISSUE COULD NOT BE RAISED BECAUSE MANY FACTS WERE INVOLVED AND ADDITIO NAL GROUND CAN BE RAISED IN RESPECT OF LEGAL ISSUES AN D FOR WHICH THE FACTS WERE ALREADY ON RECORD. IN THIS RE GARD SHE HAD FURTHER RELIED ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF HON'B LE 20 PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ARAVALI ENGINEERS P. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). SHE ALSO CONTEN DED THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN SECTION 246A OF THE ACT TO CHALLENGE THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION. IN THIS RE GARD RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. BRITISH INDI A COPRPORATION LTD. (SUPRA). 35 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ISSUE G OES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER THEN THE SAME COULD BE RA ISED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE MAINLY RELIED O N THE DECISION OF WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. (SUPRA). WE DO NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. FIRST OF ALL WE ARE O F THE OPINION THAT IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT APPEAL IS A ST ATUTORY RIGHT AND NOT AN INHERENT RIGHT. (REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO SMT. GANGA BAI VS. VIJAY KUMAR AIR (1974) S.C 1126 1129 DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAM PAL SINGH (1992) SUPP (1) SCC 191 212 CIT VS. SYED JAFFER & SONS (1992) 194 ITR 645 649). THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CA SE OF CIT VS. BRITISH INDIA CORPORATION LTD.. IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TWO WOOLLEN MILLS LOCATED I N KANPUR (U.P) AND ANOTHER MILL IN GURDASPUR (PUNJAB) . THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 WHICH WAS PROCESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R CENTRAL CIRCLE (1) KANPUR (U.P). LATER ON NOTICES U/S 143(2) WERE ISSUE AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B OF THE ACT ON SEPT 7 1977 AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) KANPUR. DU RING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AN ADDITIONAL GROU ND WITH REGARD TO LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BY CENTRAL CIRCLE (1) WAS ALSO RAISED BECAU SE ASSESSMENT FILED STOOD TRANSFERRED FROM ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 KANPUR TO INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSION ER RANGED KANPUR BY ORDER DATED JULY 1 1977. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS VOID AB-INITIO. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONSIDERED THE APPEAL ON MERITS AS WELL AS ON QUEST ION OF JURISDICTION. THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED IN PART ON MERIT. HOWEVER THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION WHICH WAS PERMITTED TO BE RAISED BY MEANS OF ADDITIONAL GROUN D WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT QUESTION OF TERRITO RIAL JURISDICTION OF THE ITO IS A MATTER ON WHICH THE DE CISION RESTS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION SIDE AND NOT WITH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED O N RAJA BHAHADUR SETH TEOMAL VS. CIT 36 ITR 9 AND WALLACE BROTHERS CO. LTD. 13 ITR 39. ON THESE FACT S HON'BLE HIGH COURT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND HELD AS UNDER: THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHO RITY CANNOT BE DISPUTED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. ALTERNATIVELY IF SUCH A QUESTION ARISES THE QUESTI ON CAN BE ADDRESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OR THE BOARD AS THE CASE MAY BE 21 IN VIEW OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 124 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT 1961 AND THIS BY NECESSARY COROLLARY EXCLUDES THE JURISDICTION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR THE COURT. AN APPE AL TO AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT LIES ON THE GROUN DS AS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 246 OF THE ACT. NONE OF ITS C LAUSES SHOWS THAT AN APPEAL ON THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION OF T HE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS MAINTAINABLE. UNLESS SOME PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO A PARTY BY A WRONG OR IRREGULAR EXERCISE OF JURISDICT ION BY A COURT NO INTERFERENCE IN APPEAL OR REVISION IS LEGALLY PE RMISSIBLE. HELD ALLOWING THE APPEAL THAT THE BURDEN WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO STATE SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFE R WAS RECEIVED BY IT WHICH IT FAILED TO DISCHARGE. THERE WAS NO PLEA EVEN IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY PREJUD ICE HAD BEEN CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVI NG BEEN PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. THE INCOME-TAX OF FICER HAD THE JURISDICTION WHEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMMEN CED AND A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECT ING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN THE JURISDICTION IF ANY UNLESS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED W OULD NOT IN ANY MANNER VITIATE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THE LACK OF JURISDICTION B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL AT THE MOST SHOULD HAVE REMITTED THE M ATTER BACK TO THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR COMPLETIN G THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ANNULLING THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS VALID. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTESTED THE A BOVE DECISION BY SUBMITTING THAT THE DECISION WAS WRONG BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION F OR TRANSFER U/S 124(3)(A). BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ISSUE OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT HAS CHALLENGED THE ABSENCE OF ORDER U/S 127. W E HAVE ALREADY MADE DETAILED DISCUSSION REGARDING ORD ER PASSED U/S 127 AS WELL AS SIGNIFICANCE OF RAISING T HE OBJECTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND THEREF ORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION BUT COM BINED READING OF SECTIONS 120 124 & 127 CLEARLY SHOW TH AT THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER AND THE PURPOSE OF RAISING OBJECTION IS THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE SETTLED AT THE THRESHOLD BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTH ORITIES AND THAT IS WHY THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR FILING TH E APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER THESE SECTION S. 123. ONE MORE CONTENTION WAS RAISED BY THE LD. AR F OR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE AC T HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT CALLING FOR ANY OBJECTION FROM THE A SSESSEE. SECTION 127(3) PROVIDED THAT OPPORTUNITY IS NOT REQ UIRED TO BE GIVEN IF THE CASES ARE REQUIRED TO BE TRANSFERRED W ITHIN THE CITY. 124. IN ANY CASE AS PER SUB SECTION 5 OF SECTION 1 24 EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INHERENT JURISDICTION AND IF SUCH INHERENT JURISDICTION IS EXERCISED THEN SAME CANNO T BE OBJECTED. IN THIS REGARD WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER T O OBSERVATION 22 OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SIRI PAUL OSWAL 293 ITR 273 (P&H) : PARA 16 - A DISTINCTION HAS TO BE MADE BETWEEN A S ITUATION WHEN THERE IS INHERENT LACK OF JURISDICTION AND A SITUAT ION WHERE JURISDICTION IS IRREGULARLY ASSUMED AND PLEA OF WANT OF JURISDICTIO N CAN BE WAIVED BY A PARTY. IN THE LATTER SITUATION THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER P ARTY WHO COULD WAIVE THE PLEA OF JURISDICTION RAISED SUCH A PLEA AND WHETHER SUCH A PARTY HAD BEEN PREJUDICED ON ACCOUNT OF ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION. TH E PRESENT CASE IN OUR VIEW FALLS IN THE SECOND CATEGORY. THE ASSESSEE PARTICIP ATED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WHOM ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT WERE TRANSFERRED AND WHO EXERCISED JURISDICTION TO ASSESS WEALTH-TAX ALSO WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED AN OBJECTION THE PROCEEDINGS C OULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED BACK TO THE CONCERNED WEALTH-TAX OFFICER. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAVING PROCEEDED FURTHER AND ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN FINALI ZED PLEA OF LACK OF JURISDICTION COULD NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN APPEAL WITHOUT SHOWING ERROR IN THE ORDER ON THE MERIT AND WITHOUT SHOWING ANY P REJUDICE TO THE ASSESSEE BY EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 125. IN THE CASE OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AS P OINTED OUT BY US THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT BY ISSUE OF WARRAN T AND THEREAFTER THE PANCHNAMA IN THE NAME OF S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES L TD. AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA AT HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 9D CHANDIGARH WAS ISSUED. THE COPY OF THE PANCHNAMA H AS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 59 A ND 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER INFORMATION WAS SOUGHT UNDER T HE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AND HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE ACI T CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH THAT SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT AT P ERSONS NAMED AT S.NO. 1 I.E. S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA ASHW ANI KUMAR GUPTA M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. AND SHRI VI JAY KUMAR GUPTA. IN THE SAID COMMUNICATION IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AT SCO NO. 37 SECTOR 26 CHANDIGARH. BUT THAT IN NO WAY ESTABLISH THAT THE SEARCH WAS NOT CARRIED UPON M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY NAMED AS M/S VISHNU ASSOCIATES LTD. INITIALLY REGISTERED OFFIC E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AT HOUSE NO. 3007 SECTOR 9 CHANDIGARH AND THE AUTHORIZATION WAS ISSUED TO SEARCH THE SAID PREMISE S UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AND NO FAULT C AN BE FOUND WITH THE EXERCISE OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT AT THE SAID ADDRESS AND FURTHER BECAUSE SURVEY OPERATIONS WERE ALSO CARRI ED OUT AT ANOTHER PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT IN ANY W AY MAKE THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT AT THE OLD REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE AS INVALID. ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT SEARCH IS CARRIED OUT AGAINST M/S VISHNU AS SOCIATES LTD. BUT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CHANGED TO M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME IS REJECTE D. 126. ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I CHANDIGARH IS NOT CORRECT AS HE HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF CHANGE IN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESS EE. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE SUCH EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH IS NOT AN 23 APPEALABLE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN AN Y CASE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH AND EVEN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4 WAS PASSED IN 2005 BY ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE III(1) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I HAS TRANSFERRED THE JU RISDICTION FROM RANGE-III CHANDIGARH TO THE CENTRAL CIRCLE C HANDIGARH OF M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. BY ORDER DATED 30.05.2 005 AND WE FIND THAT THE SAID EXERCISE OF CHANGE OF JURISDICTI ON HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CARRIED OUT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I AND NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE SAME. 127. ADMITTEDLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS BUT EARLIER THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AT THE OLD ADDRESS WHICH WAS WITHI N THE JURISDICTION OF RANGE-III CHANDIGARH. EVEN THE ASS ESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS PASSED AS LATE AS JANUARY 2005 BY THE ACIT CIRCLE-III(1) WHICH IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY BECAUSE THE ASS ESSEE HAD CHANGED ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS DOES NOT TRANSFER TH E JURISDICTION. IN ANY CASE THE JURISDICTION TO ASS ESS CASES UPON WHOM SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN CAR RIED OUT INHERENTLY VESTS WITH ASSESSING OFFICER CENTRAL CI RCLE CHANDIGARH THEN TECHNICALITIES OF TRANSFERRING THE CASE FROM THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I TO THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II AND T HEREAFTER TO CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH IS A MERE PROCEDURE A ND NON- FOLLOWING OF SUCH PROCEDURE DOES NOT MAKE TO EFFECT THE JURISDICTION VESTED IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CENTR AL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDE R OF TRANSFER CAN ONLY BE PASSED IF THERE IS A CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NO MERIT AS IN THE CASES OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION INHERENT JURISDICTION IS WITH CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH AND AFTER SUCH OPERATIONS UPON ANY PERSON/S THE CONCERNED COMMISS IONER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER SUCH CASES BY EXERCIS ING THE JURISDICTION UNDER THE RESPECTIVE SECTION OF THE AC T. THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING ASSESSED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH AND HE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER THE JURISDICTION FROM RANGE-I II CHANDIGARH TO CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH AND THE SA ID ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I HAS BEEN VALIDLY EXERCISED AND ONCE THE JURISDICTION IS VEST ED IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY A VALID TRANSFER ORDER THEN T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY EXERCISED. REJECTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN EXERCISING THE POWER TO ASSESS THE COMPANY UNDER SE CTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE GROUN D NO. 1 & 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 27 & 30/CHD/2008 ARE THUS DISMISSED. 8. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CROSS OBJECTIO NS FILED BY THE 24 ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND FO LLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD THE JURISDICTION TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION 153A OF THE ACT AS THE SAID JURISDICTION WAS VALIDLY VESTED IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 127(3) OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH. FURTHER IN VIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VALIDLY INIT IATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND CONSE QUENTLY WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGAR D. IN ANY CASE NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL AND THE ISS UE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE. IN VIEW THE REOF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH APRIL 2014. SD/- SD/- ( T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH APRIL 2014 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT(A) THE CIT DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA T CHD.