1994 (8) TMI 298 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in not declaring the order framed by the Addl. ITO, Guna as a nullity.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not confirming the AAC order for canceling the assessment framed by the Addl. ITO, Guna.
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the assessment order of ITO.

Summary:

Issue 1: Tribunal's Error in Not Declaring the Order as Nullity
The Tribunal did not declare the assessment order framed by the Addl. ITO, Guna as a nullity. The Tribunal held that initially, the ITO, Guna, had jurisdiction as the proceedings were validly commenced on the filing of voluntary returns by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the ITO, Guna, committed an irregularity in making the assessment after the Commissioner's transfer order, which made the ITO, Bhopal, the competent authority. The Tribunal set aside the AAC's order and directed the ITO of competent jurisdiction to proceed afresh with the assessment.

Issue 2: Tribunal's Error in Not Confirming the AAC Order
The Tribunal did not confirm the AAC's order canceling the assessment framed by the Addl. ITO, Guna. The Tribunal found that the ITO, Guna, had jurisdiction when the voluntary returns were filed and accepted. The Tribunal noted that the ITO, Guna, committed an irregularity by proceeding with the assessment after the Commissioner's transfer order. The Tribunal directed the competent ITO to reassess the case, considering the procedural irregularity.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Error in Setting Aside the Assessment Order
The Tribunal set aside the assessment order of the ITO, Guna, and directed the competent ITO to proceed afresh with the assessment. The Tribunal held that the ITO, Guna, initially had jurisdiction, but after the transfer order by the Commissioner, the ITO, Bhopal, was the competent authority. The Tribunal's decision was based on the procedural irregularity and the need for the competent ITO to reassess the case.

Legal Reasoning:
The Court discussed the jurisdiction of ITOs u/s 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasizing that jurisdiction can be conferred by the Commissioner for specific areas, persons, or classes of cases. The Court distinguished between inherent lack of jurisdiction and irregular assumption of jurisdiction, citing relevant case law. The Court concluded that the ITO, Guna, had jurisdiction initially, but after the transfer order, the ITO, Bhopal, was the competent authority. The procedural irregularity by the ITO, Guna, did not render the assessment a nullity but required reassessment by the competent ITO.

Conclusion:
The questions referred were answered in the negative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the AAC's order and direct the competent ITO to reassess the case was upheld.