- (1.) We have heard Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the income tax department. The income tax appeal Nos. 84 of 2012, 85 of 2012, 86 of 2012, 87 of 2012, 88 of 2012, 89 of 2012 and 90 of 2012 are reported to be defective for want of certified copy of the order. The certified copy of the common order has been filed in the connected income tax appeal. The application for exemption is allowed in all the cases. The office will give regular number to the defective income tax appeal Nos. 84 of 2012, 85 of 2012, 86 of 2012, 87 of 2012, 88 of 2012, 89 of 2012 and 90 of 2012.
(2.) These income tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act are directed against a common judgment and order dated 31.5.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi in ITA No. 1708 to 17013/Del/2011 for the assessment year 1996-97 to 2001-02.
(3.) The department has preferred the appeal on the following questions of law:-- (I) Whether, the ITAT was justified in quashing the order of the A.O. u/s. 148 in view of the provisions of Section 127(4) which stipulates transfer of case at any stage which shall not render reassurance of notice already issued by the earlier A.O.? (II) Whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the order of the A.O. u/s. 147/144 on basis of territorial jurisdiction completely ignoring the provisions of Section 124(3) which talks about raising of jurisdictional issue within one month of issuance of notice which was not done in the present case? (III) Whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the order u/s. 127 on grounds of non opportunity when it is clear that 127 does not talk of mandatory opportunity? (IV) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in quashing the order u/s. 127 when the assessee could not substantiate his address before the CIT(A)? (V) Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that Noida in Delhi geographically separate when both fall in N.C.R. Region? (VI) Whether the ITAT was correct in quashing the administrative order passed under Section 127 on grounds of opportunity when addressed this is quotable terror specially when the assessee had participated in the subsequent proceeding?;