9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above effect was issued on 5th May, 1988, being Annexure 'A' on p. 3 of the Revenue's paper book. He has contended that in the said notification there occurs mistake in Col. No. 2 that instead of mentioning on or after 1st Sept., 1979, "through mistake" on or before 1st Sept., 1979, got mentioned, and so a corrigendum Notification dt. 30th May, 1988, was issued whereby the said mistake was rectified and it was notified that the cases in which search had taken place "on or after 1st Sept., 1979" shall fall within jurisdiction of Asstt. CIT (Inv. Circle.), Udaipur. He has placed copy of the said corrigendum Notification dt. 30th May, 1988, as Annexure 'B' on p. 6 of Revenue's paper book He has further contended that thereafter another Notification dt. 29th Aug., 1990, being Annexure 'C' placed on p. 7 of Revenue's paper book was issued whereby two Circles of Asstt. CIT, Inv. Circle. 1, Udaipur, were created and the cases in which searches had been conducted "on or before 31st March, 1989" were assigned to the jurisdiction of Asstt. CIT, Inv. Circle-1, and all cases in which searches had been conducted "on or after 1st April, 1989" were assigned to Asst. CIT, Inv. Circle-2, Udaipur. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat his assessment has already been made. He has contended that this letter Annexure 'F' does not bear the signature nor the endorsement of the officer. He has referred to p. 1 para. 3 and p. 2 of the learned CIT(A)'s order and contended that the learned Dy. CIT(A) has quashed the ex parte assessment under s. 144, dt. 25th March, 1991, framed by Asst. CIT, Inv. Circle-2, Udaipur, although he also entertained suspicion about the earlier assessment order dt. 2nd March, 1989, passed by ITO, Ward-2, Udaipur, but still he upheld the said earlier assessment. He has contended that Asstt. CIT could not transfer the file on his own to ITO and that the transfer of the case from Asstt. CIT to ITO could have been made only by an order under s. 127 or IT Act and that this transfer vested in an officer not below the rank of CIT. He has, therefore, contended that the learned Dy. CIT's impugned order is, therefore, not tenable. 4. As against this, the learned authorised representative of assessee has raised objection regarding the learned Departmental Representative's contention using expression "managed" by the assessee in respect of transfer of record from Asstt. CIT to ITO, and that it was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As regards jurisdiction in respect of cases wherein search had been conducted we find that after issuance of notifications Annexure 'A' and 'B' on pp. 1 and 6, respectively, the jurisdiction stood transferred from ITO to Asstt. CIT, Inv. Circle, and subsequently on issuance of notification Annexure 'C', the same stood transferred to Asstt. CIT, Inv. Circles-1 and 2, Udaipur, as mentioned in the notification. However, we hardly need enter deep into discussions on the matter inasmuch as if the assessment dt. 2nd March, 1989, by ITO, Ward-II, was without jurisdiction or without proper jurisdiction, as the lack of inherent jurisdiction here is not without question mark, the position regarding the assessment made by Asstt. CIT, Inv. Circle-2, on 25th March, 1991, too is in no way better inasmuch as the search in this case having taken place in the year 1987, the case fell within the jurisdiction of Asstt. CIT, Inv. Circle-1, Udaipur, who had been assigned the cases in which search had been conducted on or before 31st March, 1989, and not Asstt. CIT, Inv., Circle-2, Udaipur, to whom the cases assigned are those in which search has been conducted on or after 1st April, 1989. Needless, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubt under law, and we may not be able to adjudicate upon the same due to being procedurally incompetent, or to put it more appropriately handicapped for the reason of the earlier assessment order dt. 2nd March, 1989, being not directly sub judice before us, still it may not legally be possible to ignore the same till the same is so declared and vacated/cancelled/quashed/annulled in accordance with law. However, from the perusal of record we find that the learned Dy. CIT(A) has observed in his impugned appellate order that the said earlier assessment order dt. 2nd March, 1989, has not been cancelled/annulled by any authority. This position has, in no way, improved even before us and no material on record has been brought to our notice by the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue indicative of any action in the direction having been taken. In this regard we may refer, with advantage, the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Pradip Kumar Saraf (1993) 112 CTR (Cal) 259 : (1994) 207 ITR 679 (Cal) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under : "Even in a case where it is found that the jurisdiction was defective such a decision cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
