Concurrent jurisdiction under income tax law validated notice by one officer and upheld assessment by another.

Where two Income-tax Officers had concurrent territorial jurisdiction over business income under Section 64, a notice issued by one officer remained valid and the assessment could continue by the other officer without a fresh notice. A transfer request made for the assessee's convenience did not amount to a jurisdictional dispute requiring determination under Section 64(3), and the objection based on the form of the notice was found unsubstantial. The Tribunal's refusal to state a case was also upheld because no question of law arose warranting a reference under Section 66(2). The assessment challenge therefore failed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice issued under Section 34 and the assessment thereafter made were invalid for want of jurisdiction because of the transfers between Income-tax Officers and the form of the notice. (ii) Whether the Tribunal rightly refused to state a case under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (i): Whether the notice issued under Section 34 and the assessment thereafter made were invalid for want of jurisdiction because of the transfers between Income-tax Officers and the form of the notice.

Analysis: Section 64 was applied on the footing that more than one Income-tax Officer had territorial authority over the business income, since the business carried on branches within more than one district. On that basis, the officers exercised concurrent jurisdiction under sub-sections (1) and (4). A request by the assessee for transfer of the file to a different district did not amount to a dispute requiring determination under sub-section (3). The notice issued by one officer was therefore valid, and the other officer could continue the assessment on the basis of that notice without issuing a fresh one. The objection that the notice was addressed to the Hindu undivided family rather than in some other form was held unsubstantial.

Conclusion: The notice and the assessment were valid, and the objections to jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal rightly refused to state a case under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The power to require a case to be stated arises only when the High Court is not satisfied with the correctness of the Tribunal's refusal on the ground that no question of law arose. Since the Tribunal's view was held to be correct, no direction to state a case was warranted.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's refusal to state a case was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment failed in full, and no reference was ordered, so the application was without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two Income-tax Officers have concurrent territorial jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, a notice issued by one is sufficient for assessment by the other, and a transfer sought for the assessee's convenience does not attract Section 64(3) as a dispute on the place of assessment.

---