Egbert Singh, Accountant Member - (1.) THE first two appeals are by one assessee, and the other two appeals are by two different assessees in which a common point is involved and the facts are similar. Of course in the case of the first assessee, namely, Duncan Brothers & Co. Ltd., additional points are also pressed for consideration. THE learned counsels of both the sides have addressed us in one set. Accordingly, we consolidate the appeals for disposal by this common order.
(2.) We shall take up the case of Duncan Brothers. The appeal by the assessee is that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have cancelled the assessment as barred by limitation for the assessment year 1978-79. It is also the appeal of the assessee that the assessment was otherwise bad in law and void, as no necessary opportunity demanded by the assessee under Section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), was given before the completion of the assessment. Briefly speaking, the ITO completed the assessment of the assessee under Section 143(3), read with Section 144B, of the Act by his order, dated 31-8-1981. The asssssee is a company. The ITO, who completed the assessment, was the ITO, 'B' Ward. The background of the case is that the ITO, 'J' Ward, had the original jurisdiction as per order of the CBDT, dated 4-7-1980. The ITO, J Ward, took up the assessment and when he found that the provision of Section 144B was attracted, he processed the matter and the points of making the assessment order, and, accordingly, by his letter, dated 26-3-1981, forwarded the draft assessment order to the assessee under Section 144B(1), as the variation of the income proposed to be made by him exceeded Rs. 1 lakh. From the order of the ITO, it is seen that the forwarding letter was served on the assessee on 28-3-1981. The assessee, as provided under Section 144B(2), sent its objections to the different points made in the assessment order, a copy of which has been placed at page 3 of the paper book. The ITO, J Ward, forwarded the draft assessment order along with the assessees objections thereto to the IAC, Special Range III. Meanwhile, on 1-6-1981, the Commissioner, on grounds of administrative convenience, transferred the jurisdiction of the case of Duncan Bros. & Co. Ltd. from ITO, J Ward, to the IAC, Special Range III. The IAC by his letter, dated 7-7-1981, fixed the case for hearing on 27-7-1981 requesting the assessee to appear before him together with necessary evidence, on which the assessee relied on contentions raised in the asses-see's objections dated 1-4-1981. The assessee responded, but it was stated that the assessee was not aware that the jurisdiction was changed from the ITO, J Ward, as such. The assessee noted that for the purpose of Section 144B, the IAC, Range VII, was vested with the jurisdiction on the draft, etc., sent by the ITO, J Ward. The assessee asked the IAC to clarify the position in order to ascertain the authority having proper jurisdiction over the assessee. The assessee was supplied with a copy of the order of the Commissioner, dated 1-6-1981, by which the jurisdiction was transferred to the IAC, Special Range III. Thereafter, the assessee raised another objection that if the case has been transferred to the IAC, Special Range III, it would mean that the said IAC would be exercising concurrent jurisdiction under Section 125A of the Act, over the case of the assessee, and in that situation the assessee drew the attention of the IAC to the provision of Section 144B(7). According to the assessee, in view of this section, the provision of Section 144B would not apply to the case where concurrent jurisdiction is in existence. Accordingly, the assessee expressed the doubt whether the IAC, Special Range III, would be acting in accordance with law. The assessee also wrote to the Commissioner stating the different aspects of the matter, while pointing to the jurisdiction of the concerned IAC to process the draft assessment order along with the assessee's objection thereto.
(3.) MEANWHILE, the Commissioner by his order dated 24-7-1981 notified that the case of the assessee in question has been shown to have been transferred to the IAC, Special Range III, by mistake. Accordingly, the correct jurisdiction will be that of the ITO, B Ward, who intimated the assessee by his letter dated 27-7-1981, that the jurisdiction has been transferred to the ITO, B Ward, by the Commissioner, and, therefore, the assessee was requested to contact or correspond with the ITO, B Ward, over the assessments henceforth.;