- (1.) These two appeals pursuant to special leave are brought against two orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Calcutta Bench) dated November 28, 1952, passed in appeal No. I. T. A. 4067 of 1951-52 in respect of income-tax assessment for the assessment year ending 31.3.1944 and in appeal No. E. P. T. A. 391 of 1951-52 in respect of Excess Profits tax assessment of the appellant for the chargeable accounting period ending March 31, 1943. The original assesssee was R. B. Seth Teomal who was the manager of a Hindu Undivided Family. On Seth Teomal's death on 30-5-l944, Seth Ottanmal became the manager. He is now the appellant representing the Hindu Undivided Family. He will termed as the appellant in these appeals. Seth Teomal was carrying on the business of a railway contractor at Lalmonirhat in the district of Rangpur which is now in Pakistan. In April 1943 a notice was served on him under S. 22(2) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act). He filed the return on 28-2-1944. The Income-tax Officer, Rangpur served notices on him under Ss. 24(4) and 23(2) for production of books etc. It appears that assessment proceedings continued before the Income-tax Officer, Rangpur but no final assessment was made.
(2.) According to an affidavit which has now been filed in this Court the Central Board of Revenue by an order passed under sub-s. (2) of S. 5 of the Act assigned appellant's case along with some other assessment cases to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Calcutta. The order contains the following endorsements which give an indication of the reason for the case being assigned to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central): "Copy forwarded to: (1).......... ............. ............... ........... ........... (2) Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Calcutta. These cases are reported to have E. P. T. liabilities." Thus the appellants case which was before an Income-tax Officer within the area in charge of the Commissioner of Income-tax Bengal (Mofussil) was withdrawn from him and was assigned to the Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central) Calcutta. On 11-2-1943, the Income-tax Officer, District N-C (I. T. cum. E. P. T.) to whom it appears the appellant's assessment case was assigned issued notice again under Ss. 22(4) and 23(2) of the Act. That officer after making the usual enquiries made the assessment order on 15-3l948. The order for Excess Profits Tax assessment was made on March 30, 1948.
(3.) Against these orders two appeals were taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 30-4-1948. In the appeal against income-tax assessment the appellant inter alia raised the following two grounds in regard to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer Calcutta: "5. For that the petitioner is not aware of and order passed or the transfer of the case from Rangpur to Calcutta and it is submitted that without such an order and communication of such order the assessment is challengeable for want of jurisdiction." "32. For that the appellants challenge the jurisdiction as there was no proper order of transfer and the business was carried on outside Calcutta and assessments had never before been made in Calcutta.' But no such ground was taken in the appeal against Excess Profits Tax assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed both these appeals. In regard to jurisdiction he held: "It however appeals from records on hand that the principal place of business of the concern was at Rangpur and as the income attracted E. P. T. liability the case was transferred to Calcutta under Orders of C. B. R. Hence there is no substance in the contention of the learned Advocate which fails." The appellant then took two appeals to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the appeal against income-tax assessment he took two objections in regard to jurisdiction. " For that the objection taken before the learned A. A. C. on jurisdiction should not have been summarily disposed of by passing reference to an order of transfer of the case from Rangpur to Calcutta without at the same time discussing when the question of jurisdiction was seriously raised and how and under what circumstances and to whom was the ease transferred and for what purpose." "2. For that the appellant begs leave to repeat that transfer was not legal or proper and was not made by any proper authority to legalise such transfer. ;