- (1.) THE following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, yrs. 1972 -73 to 1974 -75 : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee's appeals on the question of jurisdiction of the AO were maintainable before the CWT(A) ? (ii) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, of the IT Act was bad in law and (b) that the IAC (Assessment), Patiala, had no jurisdiction over the wealth -tax cases of the assessee -
(2.) THE jurisdiction over the assessee under the Income -tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the IT Act"), was vested in the ITO Act, directed that power conferred on the ITO shall be exercised by the Inspecting Asstt. CIT (Assessment) in respect of cases mentioned in the said order. There was, however, no order passed in respect of jurisdiction of the WTOs, Central Circle (1), Ludhiana, but the IAC (Assessment) passed assessment orders under the WT Act also in respect of the assessee. Since only specific cases could be transferred, no jurisdiction was conferred on the IAC (Assessment) and exercise of jurisdiction under the WT Act by the said officer was illegal. However, the assessee did not raise any objection to the assessment before the AO but raised objection before the appellate authority which was upheld and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue submitted that it was not open to the assessee to raise the plea of jurisdiction for the first time in appeal after the assessment as it was not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction but a case where a particular officer exercised the jurisdiction when both the parties believed that the said officer had the jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the objection as to the jurisdiction could be raised at any time and the Tribunal was, thus, justified in setting aside the assessment made and allowing objection as to the jurisdiction being raised at the appellate stage. He has referred to the following judgments : (i) Rai Bahadur Seth Teomal vs. CIT (1959) 36 ITR 9 (SC); (ii) Ajantha Industries vs. CBDT 1976 CTR (SC) 79 : (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. Geeta Ram Kali Ram (1980) 15 CTR (All)(FB) 67 : (1980) 121 ITR 708 (All)(FB); (iv) CIT vs. Amrit Sports Industries (1983) 37 CTR (P&H) 290 : (1984) 145 ITR 231 (P&H); (v) CIT vs. K. C. P. Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 455 (AP); (vi) Hindustan Transport Co. vs. IAC (1991) 189 ITR 326 (All); (vii) Jaipur Udhyog Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 85 CTR (Raj) 68 : (1992) 198 ITR 282 (Raj); (viii) CIT vs. Smt. Badhurani Deepinder Kaur (2003) 184 CTR (P&H) 359 : (2003) 262 ITR 403 (P&H); (ix) CIT vs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd. (2005) 272 ITR 405 (Mad); and (x) Smriti Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Settlement Commission (2005) 199 CTR (Cal) 261 : (2005) 278 ITR 274 (Cal). ;