Jurisdictional transfer and amnesty scheme relief require lawful procedure; premature assessment cannot defeat eligible claims.

An assessment made by an officer without a valid statutory transfer of proceedings is without jurisdiction and cannot stand, because the power to transfer lies with the Commissioner by written order and due notice. The assessing authority must also not frustrate a bona fide attempt to avail an amnesty scheme by refusing to keep proceedings in abeyance and by prejudging eligibility within the assessment order. The assessment was therefore quashed, the amnesty applications were directed to be processed in accordance with law, and assessment proceedings could be revived if the scheme was not ultimately availed of or granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessing authority had jurisdiction to complete the assessment when the proceedings had not been transferred to it under the statute; (ii) Whether the authority was justified in proceeding with and completing the assessment despite the assessee's request to keep the matter in abeyance to avail the amnesty scheme, and in deciding the assessee's eligibility under that scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the assessing authority had jurisdiction to complete the assessment when the proceedings had not been transferred to it under the statute.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits transfer of proceedings only by the Commissioner by an order in writing and after due notice to the concerned parties. The record showed that the petitioners' jurisdiction had not been transferred to the second respondent. Despite objections on jurisdiction, the authority proceeded with the assessment. An order passed by an officer lacking territorial or administrative jurisdiction is without authority of law and cannot stand.

Conclusion: The assessment order was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the authority was justified in proceeding with and completing the assessment despite the assessee's request to keep the matter in abeyance to avail the amnesty scheme, and in deciding the assessee's eligibility under that scheme.

Analysis: The amnesty scheme was introduced to resolve pending old disputes and its object required facilitative treatment of eligible assessees. Where a bona fide request is made to defer proceedings so that the benefit of the scheme can be availed, the authority ought to respect that request. The authority not only refused to keep the proceedings in abeyance, but also concluded within the assessment order that the petitioners were not entitled to the scheme. That issue was not required to be adjudicated in the assessment proceedings, and the scheme itself contemplated applications even in enforcement cases. The ex parte high-pitched assessment also frustrated the petitioners' chance to obtain meaningful benefit under the scheme.

Conclusion: The authority was not justified in proceeding in that manner, and its view on ineligibility under the amnesty scheme could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessments were set aside and the applications under the amnesty scheme were directed to be processed in accordance with law, with liberty reserved to revive assessment proceedings if the scheme was not ultimately availed of or granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute vests power to transfer proceedings in a specified authority, an assessment made by an officer without such transferred jurisdiction is void, and an assessing authority should not defeat a bona fide attempt to avail a pending amnesty scheme by rushing to complete an assessment and prejudging eligibility under that scheme.

---