I.S.Verma, - (1.) IT(SS)A Nos. 18, 19 and 22/Agr/2003 are by the assessees, namely, Shri Anand Kumar Agarwal, Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, whereas IT(SS)A Nos. 26 and 30/Agr/2003 are by the revenue in the case of Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal and Anand Kumar Agarwal.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are disposed of by this common/consolidated order. I have heard the parties.
(3.) THE brief facts, which are common to all these appeals and as have been revealed from the records, are that a partnership firm styled as M/s. New Alankar Jewellers, constituted with effect from 4-9-1997, by way of a deed of partnership executed on the same day, was carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of gold and silver ornaments at Chawk Bazar, Chatarpur (MP). THE firm was constituted of five partners, who were HUFs represented by their respective Kartas, namely, Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Shri Anand Kumar Agarwal. THEse three partners were existing assessees in their individual capacity as well as separately existing assessees in the capacity of HUFs (being represented by them) as partners of the firm, M/s. New Alankar Jewellers. THE firm was also regular assessee. 4.1 On 19-1-2000, the IT department carried out a search action at the business premises of the partnership firm as well as at the residential premises at Sarrafa Mohalla, Chatarpur, which, as per the revenue, was the residence of Shri Ajay Kumar Saraf, Vijay Kumar Saraf and Anand Kumar Saraf. Since the copy of search warrant is not on record, it is gathered from the copies of Panchnama placed at pp. 19 and 36 of the assessee's paper book Vol. (0) that the same would have been in the name of Shri Ashok Sarraf, Vijay Sarraf, Anand Sarraf and Ajay Sarraf (Agarwal). 4.2 During the course of search at the alleged residential premises', gold jewellery weighing 1,101 gms. (gross weight), documents relating to the purchase of agricultural land in the name of Vijay Kumar, shares worth Rs. 30,000 in the name of Ajay Kumar, cash of Rs. 39,650 from the room of Shri Anand Kumar and documents for investment of Rs. 5,00,000 in a shop in the name of Pramod Kumar Agarwal, Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Anand Kumar Agarwal and Ajay Kumar Agarwal were found. Since the firm, its partners, which were HUFs and Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Anand Kumar Agarwal (all the three in their individual capacity as well as in the capacity of Kartas of their respective HUFs, which were partners of the firm) were being assessed with the Income Tax Officer, Chatarpur, the CIT, Jabalpur, wanted to transfer the jurisdiction over the case of the firm and its partners, i.e., HUFs from Income Tax Officer, Chatarpur, to Dy. CIT, Investigation Circle 2(1), Jabalpur, and for that purpose gave an opportunity to the firm and its partners by way of letters dated 24-3-2000, which were addressed as under (p. 51 of paper book) : In the case of Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal: (English version) "To, Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Chhotey Lal Agarwal, Partner, M/s New Alankar Jewellers, Chatarpur (MP)" In the case of Shn Alay Kumar Agarwal: (English version), "To, Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Chhotey Lal Agarwal, Partner, M/s New Alankar Jewellers, Chatarpur (MP)" In the case of Shn Anand Kumar Agarwal: (English version) "To, Shri Anand Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Chhotey Lal Agarwal, Partner, M/s. New Alankar Jewellers, Chatarpur (MP)" 4.3 All the three partners gave no objection for transfer of jurisdiction over their cases, (the partners of the firm, M/s New Alankar Jewellers) as per their letters dated 27-3-2000, from Income Tax Officer, Chatarpur, to Dy. CIT, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur, (copy of p. 52 of paper book). 4.4 THE learned CIT, Jabalpur, transferred the jurisdiction of 20 cases, which were being assessed by Income Tax Officer, Ward Chatarpur, to Dy. CIT, Investigation Circle 2(1), Jabalpur, as per order dated 17-4-2000 (p. 53 of paper book). 4.5 THE relevant part of this order of the CIT, Jabalpur, in respect of the firm M/s. New Alankar Jewellers, Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Anand Kumar Agarwal and Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal reads as under ORDER "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and all the other powers enabling him in this behalf, the CIT, Jabalpur, hereby directs that the cases, particulars of which are mentioned in Col. 2 of the Schedule below, shall stand transferred from the assessing officer mentioned in Col. 3 of the Schedule to the assessing officer mentioned in Col. 4 of the following 2. THE transfer of records has been considered essential for administrative convenience and co-ordinated investigation. Schedule judgement_248_tlit0_20040.htm 5. THEreafter, the Dy. CIT, Jabalpur, issued notice under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act on 5-6-2000, and since the notices in all the three cases are in the same language and for the sake of convenience, the notice in the case of Vijay Kumar Agarwal is reproduced as under: "Notice under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Office of the Dy. CIT, Cir. 2(1), Jabalpur Block period 1st April, 1989 to 31-3-1999 And from 1-4-1999 to the date of search. Dt. 5th June 2000 To, Vijay Agarwal S/o Late Shri Chotelal Saraf, Galla Mandi, Chatarpur. As per the provisions of section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, you are required to file a return of income in the prescribed Form No. 2 verified in the same manner as return under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142, setting forth your total income including the undisclosed income for the block period within 45 days from the service of this notice. SW(R.P. Verma) Dy. CIT, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur." 6. After having received the aforesaid notices under section 158BC, the partners of the firm, i.e., HUFs represented by their respective Kartas, furnished their returns of undisclosed income for the block period 1-4-1989 to 31-3-1999, with Dy. CIT, Jabalpur, declaring nil undisclosed income on 23-1-2001. In December, 2001, the notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued by Assistant Commissioner, Range 1, Gwalior, and as per copies of the same placed at pp. 66 and 68 of paper book, Vol. (0) in the case of Vijay Kumar and were addressed as under: "Notice under section 142(1) (English version) To, Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, P/o New Alankar Jewellers, Chawk Bazar, Chatarpur." Notice under section 143(2) To, Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, P/O New Alankar Jewellers, Chawk Bazar, Chatarpur." 6.1 Similar notices in the case of Ajay Kumar and Anand Kumar were issued addressing in the similar way. 7. All the three partners of M/s. New Alankar Jewellers, i.e., HUFs, objected to the validity of the notices issued under sections 142(1) and 143(2) by Assistant Commissioner, Range 1, Gwalior, as per their letter dated 16-1-2002 (p. 67 of paper book Vol. (0) on the ground that the jurisdiction over their cases was transferred to Dy. CIT, Jabalpur, and not to Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior. 8. However, this objection remained unattended. THE Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior, ultimately completed the assessment of block period in cases of Vijay Kumar, Ajay Kumar and Anand Kumar Agarwal in their 'individual capacity' as per assessment orders for block period dated 30-1-2002. 9. THE details of undisclosed income and source thereof, as assessed by the assessing officer, in all the three individual cases, are as under: Undisclosed income computed by assessing officer judgement_248_tlit0_20041.htm 10. On appeal, the CIT(A) as per orders dated 4-4-2003, deleted the whole of undisclosed income in the cases of Ajay Kumar, Anand Kumar (individuals). 10.1 So far as the case of, Vijay Kumar (individual) is concerned, the CIT(A) deleted the whole of the undisclosed income, considered by the assessing officer on account of alleged undisclosed investment in agricultural land and in shop. So far as investment in gold jewellery is concerned, the CIT(A) accepted the gold jewellery weighing 1,001 gms., as disclosed and sustained the addition on account of alleged undisclosed investment in 100 gms. of gold jewellery. THE relevant part of the order of CIT(A) reads as under "I have considered the arguments of the learned Authorised Representative and perused the assessment order. THE assessing officer in effect has accepted that according to the appellant's family status to the extent of 500 gms. of jewellery can be treated as explained. But, he failed to give any finding with respect to the jewellery received at time of partition of the family. I have perused p. 149 Vol. '0' which was part of settlement deed of coparceners of Chotelal Saraf HUR THE wealth-tax assessment order filed on p. 155 of Vol. '0' proved the availability of gold in the hands of HUF. In my view, out of jewellery weighing 1, 10 1 gms. (gross) 569 gms. jewellery is reflected in the WT return filed by the appellant. Thus, the same stands explained. THE appellant's contention is supported by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Vinod Danchand Ghodwat (2000) 163 CTR (Bom) 432: (2001) 247 ITR 448 (Bom). In my view, addition made on account of the remaining jewellery weighing 531 gms. is not correct. THE rest of the jewellery belongs to the appellant, his two daughters and son. THE appellant himself possesses 99.070 gms. which is negligible. His daughters possess 188.150 and 157. 100 gms. whereas son possesses 87.680 gms. This is very small quantity in the Sarafa family. Yet, addition at the most be made for 100 gms. @ Rs. 3,300 per 10 gms. i.e., 33,000. THE appellant gets relief of Rs. 1,65,030." 11. Before CIT(A), all these individuals objected to the validity of assessments for block period having been framed in their individual status on various grounds, but the learned CIT(A) did not deal with any of those grounds. 12. THE present appeals in the cases of all the three individuals are against the orders of the CIT(A). 13. It was in the light of above facts and circumstances of the case that the parties have advanced their respective arguments. 14. From the memorandums of appeals filed before the Tribunal as well as before the CIT(A) and the orders of the CIT(A), the appeals seem to have been furnished by HUFs headed by three persons, namely, Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Anand Kumar Agarwal, whereas the assessment orders for block period are in the status of individuals and not in the status of HUFs. THE counsel for the appellants was asked to clarify the position and rectify the defect with respect to the status of the appellants. THE counsel explained that since the partners of the firm, M/s. New Alankar Jewellers, were HUFs and not individuals, the CIT, Jabalpur, had transferred the jurisdiction of HUFs from Chatarpur to Jabalpur and not of individuals,, the notices issued under section 158BC of the Act did not indicate the specific status, the general impression entertained by the appellants was that the assessments of block period were being made in the case of partners of M/s. New Alankar Jewellers and not of individuals. THE counsel further submitted that in view of these facts, the appellants were under the impression that they were called upon to furnish the returns of undisclosed income of HUFs and that was the reason that they had furnished the returns of undisclosed income in the status of HUFs. THE counsel further submitted that the assessing officer, having completed the assessments after considering the returns in the status of HUFs, the impression was further strengthened that the assessment orders for block period dated 30-1-2002, were in cases of partners (HUFs) and the status mentioned in the assessment orders as "individual" was by mistake. According to the learned counsel, this impression was further strengthened from the order of block assessment in the case of the firm itself, wherein the status had been mentioned as "individual" instead of 'registered firm' or 'firm'. 14.1 THE learned counsel, therefore, submitted that it was in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the appeals before the CIT(A) were filed by the HUFs. 15. THE counsel further submitted that during the course of hearing of appeals before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) had called for remand report from the assessing officer, copy of which is placed at pp. 203 to 205 of assessee's paper book, wherein the assessing officer admitted that the search action had been carried out in the cases of three individuals, notices under section 158BC of the Act were issued in cases of same 1hree individuals and assessments have been framed in the status of individuals and are valid. According to the learned counsel, the CIT(A), after having considered the remand report of the assessing officer as well as the counter- arguments submitted by the assessee thereupon, entertained the appeals filed by the HUFs, which goes to show that the CIT(A) had either accepted the HUFs to be competent to file the appeals or had considered the appeals to have been filed by the individuals. THE counsel, therefore, submitted that in both the eventualities, the appeals filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal are valid one. THE counsel further submitted that if the assessments are taken to have been made in the case of partners then the status is to be taken as that of HUFs and, therefore, the status mentioned as 'individual' in the assessment orders has to, be taken due to mistake. In that case, the appeals filed by the HUFs are to be taken as having been filed by the proper persons and in case the assessments are taken to have been made in the cases of individuals, then also, the CIT(A) having entertained the appeals in view of the remand report of the assessing officer, the appeals have to be taken to have been filed by the individuals. THE counsel, therefore, submitted that the present appeals filed before the Tribunal may be considered as valid. 16. THE learned departmental Representative, on the other hand, stressed that the search was in case of individuals, notices under section 158BC of the Act were issued in the cases of individuals and the assessments were completed in the status of individuals, which means that the appeals could be filed only by the individuals and not by HUFs. Consequently, the learned departmental Representative submitted that if the appeals are taken to have been filed by the HUFs then the same may be dismissed as not maintainable. 17. I have considered the rival submissions and to decide the issue, have to consider the facts relating to this issue and as have been revealed from the records, which are as under: From the copies of Panchnama, dated 19-1-2000, copies of notices under section 158BC of the Act, dated 5-6-2000, in all the three cases, the order of the CIT, transferring the jurisdiction under section 127 of the Act, the returns filed by the partners of the firm, i.e., HUFs, the notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and the assessment orders for block period, which reveal that; (i) Search action was on the basis of search warrant in the names of four persons, namely, Vijay Kumar Saraf, Ajay Kumar Saraf, Anand Kumar Saraf and Ashok Kumar Saraf. (ii) THE Panchnama was in the names of Ashok Saraf, Vijay Saraf, Anand Saraf and Ajay Saraf (Agarwal) (p. 19 of the paper book). (iii) Notices under section 158BC of the Act were issued in cases of individuals and not in cases of HUFs (p. 55 of the paper book). (iv) Jurisdiction under section 127 of the Act was transferred in the case of partners of M/s New Alankar Jewellers, who happened to be HUFs and not individuals (copy of order at p. 53 of the paper book). (v) Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the partners of M/s New Alankar Jewellers, i.e., in cases of HUFs and not in cases of individuals (pp. 6675 of the paper book). (vi) Assessments of block periods have been completed in the status of individuals, i.e., in the cases of individuals and not in the cases of HUFs. 18. In view of the above admitted facts and the fact that the CIT(A) having entertained the appeals filed by the HUFs after due consideration of remand report of the assessing officer dated 7-3-2003, wherein the revenue has taken stand that the assessments for block period Were in the cases of individuals, I am of the opinion that the appeals filed before the CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal have to be taken as having been filed by the individuals and any mistake in the memorandums of appeal is deemed to have been rectified. My aforesaid conclusion is based on the facts 'as have been revealed from the record, which have been admitted by the revenue and goes to show that so far as HUFs are concerned, there was neither search in the cases of HUFs nor notices under section 158BC, were issued in the cases of HUFs. In view of all these facts, furnishing of returns by HUFs in compliance to the notices under section 158BC in cases of individuals, in the status of HUFs were non est and even if were valid, then the same having been not disposed of, there is no assessment order in the cases of HUFs. Similarly, the notices issued under section 143(2) as well as under section 142(1) in the cases of HUFs were bad in law and invalid. 19. In view of the totality of above facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeals filed before the Tribunal are considered to have been filed properly. 20. THE counsel for the assessee first of all objected to the validity of assessments in case of all the three assessees having been framed in the individual status and the grounds for the same were submitted as under: (i) THE first objection raised by the counsel was that the partnership firm, M/s. New Alankar Jewellers, was constituted by HUFs represented' by their, respective Kartas, i.e., partners of the firm were HUFs and not the individuals and since the CIT had transferred the jurisdiction of partnership firm and its partners from Income Tax Officer, Chatarpur, to Dy. CIT, Jabalpur, the jurisdiction over individual cases of all the three appellants remained with Income Tax Officer, Chatarpur, and if that is the case, then the assessments for block period completed by Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior, are without jurisdiction and, therefore, illegal and bad in law. (ii) THE second objection raised by the counsel was that the jurisdiction over the firm and its partners' HUFs was transferred by CIT, Jabalpur, from Income Tax Officer, Chatarpur, to Dy. CIT, Jabalpur and, therefore, the transfer of jurisdiction from Dy. CIT, Jabalpur, to Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior, was illegal and bad in law for the following reasons: (a) Under the law, jurisdiction from one station to other station can be transferred only under section 127 of the Act and, that too, after allowing the assessee opportunity of being heard. But so far as the alleged transfer of jurisdiction from Dy. CIT, Jabalpur to Assistant Commissioner, Gwahor, is concerned, neither the assessees were granted an opportunity nor have they been shown any order under section 127 of the Act passed by the CIT. (b) In the remand report called by the CIT(A) (copy at p. 203 of the paper book) and the assessees' reply thereto (copes placed at p. 206 of paper book), the ,jurisdiction from Jabalpur to Gwalior seems to have been transferred by Addl. CIT, Gwalior, under section 120 of the Act, which did not have legal force and r that purpose relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimli Mithiborwala 1973 CTR (SC) 454; (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC). (iii) THE notices issued under section 158BC of the Act did not mention the status in which the returns of undisclosed income were required to be furnished and, therefore, the same were illegal and bad in law. (iv) In consequent upon the notices under section 158BC issued on 5-6-2000, the returns of undisclosed income were furnished in the status of HUF, whereas the assessments for block period were completed in the status of individual, which are illegal and bad in law. (v) Assessees' another objection was that the search action was carried out on 19-1-2000, and was completed upto 10 PM on the same day when the revenue authorities prepared a Panchnama and inventories of valuables and documents found and seized. According to the learned counsel, the revenue authorities issued order under section 132(3) after sealing a wooden almirah housed in guest-house knowing that there was nothing in that almirah. THE explaining this aspect, the learned counsel submitted that the almirah was lying unlocked and the revenue authorities have searched the same, but with an intention to prolong the search, the authorities sealed the same and Panchnama prepared on 19-1-2000, was prepared for partial search. THE counsel in support of his plea submitted that the almirah sealed by the revenue authorities was lying unlocked as empty, referred to second Panchnama (copies placed at p. 36 of the paper book) prepared on 9-2-2000, as per which, the details of valuables/documents found, seized and not seized, have been recorded as nil. According to the counsel, there were no valuables or any documents in that almirah. He, therefore, submitted that the order under section 132(3) of the Act issued on 19-1-2000, was only with an intention to prolong the search and not to carry out the search as per the provisions of law. Secondly, the search action itself was illegal and bad in law, 21. So far as the issue of addition in the case of Vijay Kumar amounting to Rs. 33,000 on account of alleged undisclosed investments in gold jewellery is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the CIT having accepted the factum that the jewellery with the assessee and wife was explained and the jewellery in the name of children was very small, which was usual in Sarafa family, there was no reason for sustaining the said addition. THE assessee further supported his plea by relying on the CBDT Circular No. 1916, dt. 11-9-1994, and the order of Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in the case of Sulochana Deo Jaiswal 32 ITC 41 (copy placed at p. 237 of the paper book). In support of the above submissions, the counsel for the assessee relied on the following case laws (i) CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (supra) (ii) Mohd. Rafiqbhai & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner (2000) 67 TTJ (All) 191 (iii) Empire Estate v. Income Tax Officer (1992) 41 ITD 23 (Bom) (iv) T.S. Sulatha v. Union of India & Anr. (1999) 151 CTR (Ker) 29 (1999) 239 ITR 488 (Ker) (v) Gokul Chand v. Income Tax Officer (1995) 125 CTR (All) 146: (1995) 211 ITR 738 (All) (vi) T.S. Sujatha v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 149 CTR (Ker) 343 : (1999) 238 1TR 599 (Ker) (vii) Lakshmibai v. Income Tax Officer (1972) 86 1TR 804 (Mys) (viii) Balchand Malaiya & Ors. v. CIT (1983) 32 CTR (MP) 128 : (1983) 144 ITR 791 (MP) (ix) K. Madhvan Nambiar v. Wealth Tax Officer (1982) 134 ITR 695 (Ker) (x) Addl. CIT v. Chunnilal (1979) 11 CTR (All) 240: (1979) 117 ITR 976 (All) (xi) Shyam Sunder Balal v. Income Tax Officer (1973) 89 ITR 317 (Cal) (xii) Ravinder Narain v. ITO (1974) 96 1TR 612 (Del) (xiii) Madanlal Choudhary v. Income Tax Officer (1979) 119 ITR 351 (Cal) (xiv) Income Tax Officer v. Chandi Prasad Modi (1979) 119 ITR 340 (Cal) (xv) CIT v. B. Ranga Reddy (1979) 10 CTR (AP) 13..(1979) 118 ITR 897 (AP) (xvi) Rampiari Khernka v. CIT & Ors. (1966) 61 ITR 600 (Cal). 22. THE learned departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of revenue authorities. 23. After having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case as well as provisions of law relevant to block assessment, transfer of jurisdiction from one officer to other officer at the same station and from one place to an other place, various decisions and all the material placed on record by the parties, I am of the opinion that (i) So far as the assessees' claim that search was prolonged by the revenue authorities by issuing notice under section 132(3) of the Act in respect of a wooden almirah intentionally/knowingly and to prolong the search, which has invalidated the search, I am of the opinion that this aspect of the matter is relevant only for limitation purpose and even if the assessees' objection is accepted, then. also, so far as the limitation is concerned, the assessment orders for block periods have to be held to have been completed within the period of two years even from the date of first Panchnama, dated 19-1-2000 (assessment orders have been completed on 30-1-2002). THEse objections of the assessee, therefore, are of no consequence. (ii) So far as assessees' objection that CIT had transferred the jurisdiction over the case of the firm and its partners (i.e., HUFs) from Income Tax Officer, Chatarpur, to Dy CIT, Jabalpur, and not to Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior, so, the assessments framed by Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior, are not valid, I am inclined to agree with the submissions of the counsel because the revenue has not placed any material on record either during the course of hearing before the CIT(A) or before the Tribunal as to how and under what circumstances, the jurisdiction over the firm, M/s. New Alankar Jewellers, and its partners (which were HUFs or individuals), was transferred from Dy. CIT, Jabalpur/Chatarpur to Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior. THE Revenue's claim, as is gathered from the remand report submitted before the CIT(A) and assessees' reply thereupon (copies at pp. 203 and 206, respectively, in assessee's paper book, Vol. 0, however seems to be that the Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior, was competent to exercise jurisdiction over the case of M/s New Alankar Jewellers and its partners (HUFs) in exercise of powers of section 127 of the Act, which, in my opinion, is not correct interpretation of the provisions in this respect. I, therefore, am of the opinion that the Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior, did not have, in absence of order under section 127 of the Act, jurisdiction over the cases of the partners of M/s. New Alankar Jewellers, which were HUFs or the cases of individuals, namely, Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Anand Kumar Agarwal and, therefore, any order passed by Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior, in cases of partners of M/s New Alankar Jewellers or in cases of Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Shri Anand Kumar Agarwal had to be held to be void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. 24. THE assessees' next objection is that the returns had been filed in the status of HUFs, but the assessments have been framed in the status of individuals, which has vitiated the assessments framed in the status of individuals because the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to change the status of the assessee. I, after having considered the factual position, am of the opinion that the revenue having admitted (as is evident from remand report furnished by the assessing officer before the CIT(A)l that since the search having been carried out in the cases of individuals, and notices under section 158BC of the Act having been issued in the cases of individuals, the assessments of block period completed in the status of individuals were valid assessments, that the assessees' objection does not survive. So far as the claim of the assessee having furnished the returns in the status of HUFs is concerned, I am of the opinion that there being no proceedings either under section 132 or under section 158BC of the Act in the cases of HUFs, the returns furnished in the status of HUFs were non est, meaning thereby that assessing officer has not changed the status as has been submitted by the assessee. Consequently, this objection is rejected. 25. Coming to the objection that the jurisdiction over the individual cases remained with the Income Tax Officer, Chatarpur, i.e., the jurisdiction over the individual cases was never transferred either to Dy. CIT, Jabalpur, or Assistant Commissioner, Gwalier, I am inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel because from the copy of the order of CIT passed under section 127 of the Act (placed at p. 53 of the paper book), it is evidenced beyond any doubt that the learned CIT had transferred the jurisdiction of partners of M/s New Alankar Jewellers, which admittedly were HUFs, from Income Tax Officer, Chatarpur, to Dy. CIT, Investigation Circle 2(1), Jabalpur, and not to Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior. THE notices issued by Assistant Commissioner under section 142(1) as well as section 143(2) (relevant part has been reproduced in the foregoing part of this order) which were also addressed to the partners of M/s. New Alankar Jewellers, which were HUFs and not individuals, also confirm that the jurisdiction, if any transferred was with respect to the partners of M/s. New Alankar Jewellers, who were HUFs. Not only this, the Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior, as is evident from the notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) was in proceeding to make assessment of the partners of M/s. New Alankar Jewellers, which were HUFs and not of individuals. 25.1 In view of the above factual position, which is evidenced by the documentary evidence issued by the revenue authorities, I am of the opinion that the jurisdiction over the individual cases of Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Anand Kumar Agarwal was never transferred from. Income Tax Officer, Chatarpur, to any other authority either at the same station or to any other outstation, meaning thereby that it was only Income Tax Officer, Chatarpur, who continued to have jurisdiction over the individual cases of these three persons and once this factual position is accepted, the only conclusion is that neither the Dy. CIT Jabalpur, nor Asst. CIT, Gwalior, had jurisdiction to frame assessments of block period in the cases of individuals-neither under section 158BC, nor under section 158BD read with section 158BC. Consequently, the assessments framed by the Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior, in status of individual in the cases of three individuals on 30-11-2000, are held to be illegal and bad in law and void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. 26. So far as the merits of the issue relating to undisclosed income of Rs. 33,000 raised in the case of Vijay Kumar Agarwal is concerned, I, after having gone through the decision of Tribunal, Jabalpur, in the case of Sulochna Deo (supra), Board's Circular No. 1916, dated 11-5-1994, and specially the findings of the CIT(A) himself at pp. 3 and 4 of his order, wherein the issue relating to source of gold jewellery has been discussed, am of the opinion that the CIT(A) has sustained the addition of Rs. 33,000 only for the sake of addition, otherwise, he had completely and validly accepted the source of investment in gold jewellery weighing 1,101 gms. (gross). 26.1 Even otherwise, after having gone through various replies, furnished by the assessee before the assessing officer and the CIT(A), copies of which have been placed on record and the fact that revenue authorities have not brought any evidence for reviewing the factual claim made by the assessee, the investment in gold jewellery, in my opinion, stands fully explained and consequently, there was no reason for sustaining the undisclosed income of Rs. 33,000 by the CIT(A) in the case of Vijay Kumar Agarwal on account of alleged undisclosed income in gold jewellery, and is deleted. 27. In the result, the assessments of block period framed in the status of individual, viz., in the names of Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Anand Kumar Agarwal, on 30-1-2002, are cancelled being void ab initio and the appeals are allowed. 28. IT(SS)A Nos. 26 and 301Agra12002: In ITA No. 26, the. Revenue has objected to the order of CIT(A), dated 4-4-2003, by way of following grounds : "(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,65,030 made on account of unsatisfactorily explained investment in gold added by AQ. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1, 14,500 made on account of unsatisfactorily explained investment in purchase of land. (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the unexplained investment of Rs. 1 lakh from block assessment in purchase of shop by accepting the explanation that it belonged to HUF by whom the return showing such investment was filed belated or was otherwise invalid. " 29. I have heard the parties. 30. First of all, I am of the opinion that since the assessment framed in the individual status for block period in the case of Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal has been cancelled being void ab initio as per order in IT(SS)A No. 22/Agr/2003 of the even date, the revenue's appeal does not survive and, therefore, the same stands dismissed. 31. Even otherwise on merits also, the CIT(A) having deleted the addition by accepting the documentary evidence and the revenue having not brought any material contrary to the evidence relied upon by the CIT(A), there is no merit in the objections raised by the revenue. Consequently, the revenue's appeal is dismissed. 32. In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed. 33. IT(SS)A No. 30/Agra/2003: In this, revenue has objected to the order of CIT(A), dated 4-4-2003, by way of following grounds: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,000 from block assessment on account of unsatisfactorily explained cash before the assessing officer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the unexplained investment of Rs. 1 lakh from block assessment in purchase of shop by accepting the explanation that it belonged to HUF by whom the return showing such investment was filed belated or was otherwise invalid. 34. On merits, since the assessment framed in the individual status for block period in the case of Shri Anand Kumar Agarwal. has been cancelled being bad in law and void ab initio as per order in IT(SS)A No. 18/Agr/2003 of the even date, the revenue's appeal does not survive and, therefore, the same stands dismissed. 35. Even otherwise, the tax effect in this revenue's appeal, being less than Rs. 1,00,000, the appeal is considered as having been filed in contravention of CBDT instruction, the same is liable to be dismissed. 36. In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed.;