Court affirms jurisdiction of ITO for reassessment, deems order valid. Procedural requirements met. Transfer of jurisdiction upheld.

The court upheld the jurisdiction of the ITO, Agra, to issue the reassessment notice and deemed the reassessment order valid based on substantial evidence of escaped income. The court found that the procedural requirements for reassessment were met, including compliance with necessary procedures and timeliness of the notice issuance. The transfer of jurisdiction between different Income Tax Officers was also deemed appropriate. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition and discharged the interim order staying the recovery proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to issue reassessment notice.
2. Validity of the reassessment order under Section 147/148.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements for reassessment.
4. Timeliness of the reassessment notice.
5. Transfer of jurisdiction between different Income Tax Officers.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to issue reassessment notice:
The petitioner contended that the ITO, Agra did not have jurisdiction to issue the reassessment notice as the company was assessed in New Delhi. The court examined Section 124 of the Income Tax Act, which deals with the jurisdiction of Assessing Officers. It was noted that the petitioner had its principal place of business at Agra and also maintained a branch office there. The court found that the ITO, Agra had concurrent jurisdiction and was authorized to issue the reassessment notice. The court also noted that the petitioner did not raise the jurisdictional issue within the stipulated time frame as required under Section 124(3).

2. Validity of the reassessment order under Section 147/148:
The petitioner challenged the reassessment order on the grounds that it was based on incorrect jurisdiction and was issued after the statutory period. The court referred to the search and seizure operations carried out in the Ganga Ram Agrawal group of cases, which revealed that the loans taken by the petitioner were bogus and represented undisclosed income. The court held that the reassessment order was valid as it was based on substantial evidence of escaped income.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements for reassessment:
The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings did not comply with the procedural requirements, including the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and the disposal of objections. The court observed that the ITO, Agra had taken extreme caution and care before assuming jurisdiction and had followed the necessary procedures. The court also noted that the ITO, Agra had sought permission from the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Agra and had received directions to frame protective assessment orders to prevent loss of revenue.

4. Timeliness of the reassessment notice:
The petitioner contended that the reassessment notice was issued after the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, making it time-barred. The court examined the timeline of events and found that the notice under Section 148 was issued within the statutory period. The court also noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information received during the search and seizure operations, which justified the issuance of the notice within the extended time frame.

5. Transfer of jurisdiction between different Income Tax Officers:
The petitioner raised concerns about the transfer of jurisdiction between different Income Tax Officers in Agra and New Delhi. The court reviewed the correspondence between the ITO, Agra, and the officers in New Delhi. It was found that the officers in New Delhi had returned the case papers to the ITO, Agra, advising her to proceed with the reassessment. The court concluded that the ITO, Agra had acted within her jurisdiction and had followed the necessary procedures for transferring the case, if required.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the jurisdiction of the ITO, Agra, and the validity of the reassessment order. The interim order staying the recovery proceedings was discharged. The court emphasized that the reassessment was based on substantial evidence of escaped income and that the procedural requirements were duly followed by the ITO, Agra.

---