Place of assessment under income tax law is for the Commissioner, not appeal or reference, when special assignment applies.

Where the Central Board of Revenue validly assigns an income-tax case under section 5(2), the special rule in section 64(5) displaces the ordinary local-assessment provisions, so the assessment is not invalid merely because it was made at Calcutta rather than Rangpur. A dispute confined to the place of assessment is to be determined by the Commissioner under section 64(3) and is not an appealable issue under sections 30 or 33. It also cannot be raised by reference under section 66 unless it arises from the Tribunal's order. The Calcutta assessment was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment made at Calcutta lacked jurisdiction because the assessee carried on business at Rangpur and the objection related to the place of assessment; (ii) Whether the objection as to the place of assessment could be raised in appeal or in a reference under the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment made at Calcutta lacked jurisdiction because the assessee carried on business at Rangpur and the objection related to the place of assessment.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between the authority empowered to make the assessment and the place of assessment. The Central Board of Revenue had validly assigned the case to the Commissioner exercising functions in respect of the relevant cases under section 5(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and that order attracted section 64(5), with the result that sections 64(1) and 64(2) did not apply. The objection that the assessment should have been made only at Rangpur therefore failed, and the assessment by the Calcutta officer was not an illegal assumption of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction based on the place of assessment was rejected and the assessment was held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection as to the place of assessment could be raised in appeal or in a reference under the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The Act contemplated determination of a place-of-assessment dispute by the Commissioner under section 64(3), not by appellate authorities. No appeal was provided against such a determination under sections 30 or 33, and a question not arising from the Tribunal's order could not be referred under section 66(1) or directed to be stated under section 66(2). The challenge was therefore not maintainable in the appellate/reference hierarchy after assessment.

Conclusion: The objection was held not to be entertainable in appeal or reference.

Final Conclusion: The assessment at Calcutta was upheld, and the refusal to direct a reference was sustained; the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Central Board of Revenue validly assigns a case under section 5(2), the special exclusion in section 64(5) displaces the ordinary local-assessment rule, and a dispute confined to the place of assessment is not an appellate question under the Act.

---