J.P. Bengra, Judicial Member - (1.) THESE are two appeals-each by the assessee and revenue-against the order of the CWT(A) pertaining to A. Ys. 1979-80 & 1980-81. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being disposed of by a single order.
(2.) At the time of hearing, the learned assessee's counsel raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The submission of the assessee's counsel was that if the IAC had no jurisdiction to pass an assessment order under the WT Act, there is no need to decide the matter on merits. The IAC did not agree with the contention of the assessee. On appeal, the CWT(A) also rejected the contention of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee has raised this preliminary objection before the Tribunal. The CWT(A) was of the view that Under Section 8 of the WT Act, the Officer having jurisdiction under the Income-tax Act has simultaneous jurisdiction under the Wealth-tax Act. The case of CWT v. B. Nathmal Vaid [1985] 20 Taxman 222 (Mad.) was distinguished by the learned CWT(A). The assessee's learned counsel submitted that the learned CIT has erred in not applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of B. Nathmal Vaid (supra) in which it was held that the order made by the AAC is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction for want of specific notification empowering the IAC to deal with the case. As against this, the learned DR., Shri Raj Kishore, submitted that once the IAC has been authorised to act concurrently with the ITO by the issue of a notification Under Section 127, he automatically becomes the ITO and by virtue of Section 8 he has been authorised to perform the functions of a WTO under the WT Act in respect of the same individual and, therefore, no separate notification Under Section 8AA of the WT Act is necessary. Reading out the provisions of Section 8AA, he invited our attention that Under Section 8 the ITO having territorial jurisdiction has been empowered to act as a WTO if the case is transferred from the file of the ITO automatically the jurisdic-tion is vested with that officer in wealth-tax cases also. There is no need to pass a separate order or notification, because by virtue of Section 8, the ITO has been empowered to function as a WTO. It is further submitted that provision has been made under the Income-tax Act but the Wealth-tax Act is silent on this point, but for that, we have to go through the spirit of the Legislature mentioned in Section 8 and we have to give a wider meaning to the term of the WTO appearing in Section 8 and we should take it as an officer having jurisdiction. Under Section 127 the Commissioner/Board has been given power to decide which of the officer shall exercise this power. If the jurisdiction after transfer is not with the IAC then whom it is vested. The learned departmental representative further submitted that Under Section 124 of the Income-tax Act the assessee can raise point of jurisdiction only when he denies the liability to pay tax. In the instant case, the assessee has not denied its liability to pay tax. Therefore, he cannot raise the point of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the plea of jurisdiction was not raised before the IAC. There fore, this issue cannot be raised in appeal, because there is no specific appeal provided Under Section 23(1)(c) of the WT Act. The assessee had raised objection about the competency of the IAC to decide the matter mentioning that the IAC has no jurisdiction rather ITO, C-IV Wd., Bombay has jurisdiction. As against this, the learned assessee's counsel submitted that point of jurisdiction was taken before the IAC but he has not dealt with the contention of the assessee. In the ground of appeal before the learned CIT it has been specifically mentioned. It is also pointed out that in departmental appeals also the question of jurisdiction has not been raised which was the natural corollary out of the order. Reliance was placed on the decision of the B. Nathmal Vaid's case (supra) and submitted that the matter came up before the Madras High Court in a regular reference application and not by way of writ, where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that in such circumstances in absence of notification, the IAC has no jurisdiction. In reply, the learned D.R. further submitted that the case before the Madras High Court was in relation to Section 125A of the IT Act read with Section 8AA of the WT Act but in the pre-sent case, the order of the CIT(A) was passed Under Section 127(1) of the IT Act and it is that section which has to be read with Section 8 of the WT Act. It is submitted that the combined opera-tion of the above two sections give jurisdiction to the IAC.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions. So far as the factual position is concerned, we find from the records of the IAC that the assessee has raised the plea of jurisdiction in roundabout manner but the plea of jurisdiction was there. It was alleged by the assessee that the IAC has no jurisdiction, it is only the ITO, C-IV Wd. who has jurisdiction. Besides this from the order of the CIT(A), it is clear that the assessee has raised the issue specifically before the CIT and he has dealt with it in his order. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the plea of jurisdiction was not raised before the IAC. Therefore, it cannot be taken up before the Tribunal. It is not essential that the plea should be raised in a particular manner but if the intend of the plea to challenge the jurisdiction of a particular authority, then the plea raised is sufficient.;