Sikri, J. - (1.) This appeal in pursuance of a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta under Section 66 (A) (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, is directed against the judgment of the High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 79 of 1959. By its judgment, the High Court answered the following question, referred to it by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, against the Revenue: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was filed by a proper person -
(2.) The relevant facts are stated in the statement of the case and are as follows:The respondents, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is a Hindu undivided family and for the assessment year 1947-48 the assessment was made by the Income Tax Officer, Dist. I (2) on February 12, 1952. He held that the income of Rs. 1,41,851 derived from forests in East Pakistan was not agricultural income exempt from tax under the Income Tax Act, 1922. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who, by his order dated February 7, 1956, held that the said amount of Rupees 1,41,851 represented income from agriculture and was thus exempt from tax. The Department appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was filed by the Income Tax Officer, District VI, Calcutta. It appears that assessee who formerly resided at 24/25 Beadon Row, Calcutta shifted in 1954 to 29B, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta consequently bringing him within the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer, District VI, Calcutta. A preliminary objection was raised before the Appellate Tribunal, on behalf of the assessee, that the appeal was incompetent because it had been filed by the Income Tax Officer, District VI, Calcutta, and not by the Income Tax Officer, District I (2) , Calcutta. It was contended before the Appellate Tribunal that the Income Tax Officer, District I (2) , was the proper officer to file the appeal because he had made the assessment. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention. It held: "The representative of the assessee conceded that the assessee was formerly residing at 24 and 25, Beadon Row, Calcutta but in 1954 he shifted to 29/B Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta, which is within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, District VI, Calcutta. Therefore, the jurisdiction for assessment vested in the Income-tax Officer, District VI in view of the provision of Section 64 (2) of the Income-tax Act. That being the case, we are of the view that there was no lack of competence on the part of Income-tax Officer, District VI to prefer the present appeal."
(3.) It will be noticed that in the facts given in the statement of the case and the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal there is no mention of any order of transfer having been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax or the Board of Revenue transferring the files from the Income Tax Officer, District I (2) to the Income Tax Officer, District VI, Calcutta. Neither is there any mention which Commissioner of Income Tax directed the Income Tax Officer. District VI, Calcutta to file the appeal.;