Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1986 (1) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ITO, Distt. I(IV). Ludhiana earlier, i.e. till 21st Dec., 1978, when an order was passed under s. 127(1) by the CIT transferring the jurisdiction to the IAC (Asst.), Patiala, which is not disputed by the assessee factually or on merit. Subsequently on 4th July, 1979, another order was passed by CIT transferring the cases above Rs. 5 lakhs and jurisdiction was assigned to ITO, Special investigation Circle, Patiala, which too on merit or a fact is not disputed by the two parties before us. Subsequently, on 4th July, 1979, another order was passed by CIT under s. 125A(1) by which the jurisdiction was transferred to IAC Patiala. Last of all, it was on 15th Dec., 1979 that another order was passed under s. 124(1) wherein the jurisdiction was tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ransfer vide order dt. 4th July, 1979 under s. 124(1) or earlier transfer. He, however, submitted that there being no controversy about the fact that the two assessments are framed by IAC (Asst.), Ludhiana, to whom at no stage these cases were transferred under s. 127(1), as the order passed on 15th Dec., 1979 was under s. 124(1), and therefore, the orders framed were without jurisdiction and were rightly cancelled. He submitted as per order of 21st Dec., 1979, the jurisdiction was exclusively with IAC, Patiala and he had the jurisdiction for the same. He submitted that proviso 4 on page 7 talks only of officers and not IACs. Since none of the orders were passed under s. 127 i.e. s. 8B dt. 4th July, 1979 or 15th Dec., 1979, the jurisdiction .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... well known that an appellate authority has the jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct all errors in the proceedings under appeal and to issue, if necessary, appropriate directions to the authority against whose decisions the appeal is preferred to dispose of the whole or any part of the matter afresh unless forbidden from doing so by the statute." In the instant case it is the statute which warrants the transfer under s. 8B of the WT Act and s. 127(1) of the IT Act and makes the grant of opportunity, to the assessee before the transfer of jurisdiction, obligatory for the Revenue which having not been done, this case instead supports the contention that of the assessee. On Supreme Court decision in the case of K. P. Varghese vs. ITO .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns were there. In the said case, their Lordships even extracted on P. 283 s. 127(1) with Explanation and provisions given thereunder and after the same, held on p. 285 of the report as under: "We are clearly of opinion that the requirement of recording reasons under s. 127(1) is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee." Then further, in the same report, it has been observed by their Lordships that "when law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order effecting prejudicially the interest of any person, who can challenge the order in Court, it ceases to be a mere administrative order and the vice of vi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assed under s. 127(1), the IAC(Asst.) who framed the assessments of wealth tax lacked jurisdiction. The reliance of the ld. Departmental Representative on yet another Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 150 Vol. 57, is also misplaced because of distinction on facts and because order of the CIT(A) is supported by the Supreme Court decision directly reported in Ajantha Industriales Ors. vs. CBDT 1976 CTR (SC) 79 : (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC) with which we have dealt with above. Similarly the reliance of the ld. Departmental Representative on Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta, etc. vs. CIT AIR 1984 SC 51 is also misplaced because of the specific provision on the statute regarding transfer from ITO to IAC and from one place t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates