Jurisdictional transfer in wealth-tax cases requires a valid order and hearing; assessments made without it were invalid.

A valid transfer of jurisdiction under the applicable wealth-tax provision, corresponding to section 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, required a competent order and an opportunity of hearing. Because the record did not show a proper transfer order shifting the cases from Patiala to Ludhiana under that provision, the assessing officer did not acquire lawful jurisdiction. The assessments were therefore treated as made without authority, and the annulment of the wealth-tax assessments was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the wealth-tax assessments were without jurisdiction because no valid transfer order was passed under the applicable transfer provision and no opportunity of hearing was granted before shifting the cases.

Analysis: The transfer of jurisdiction was governed by the wealth-tax provision corresponding to section 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the record showed that the later orders were passed under other provisions and not under the required transfer provision. The statutory requirement of transfer by the competent authority, coupled with the obligation to afford an opportunity of hearing, was treated as mandatory. Since no valid order transferring jurisdiction from the Patiala authorities to the Ludhiana authorities was made under the relevant provision, the officer who framed the assessments did not acquire jurisdiction. The assessments were therefore treated as having been made without lawful authority, and the earlier cancellation was held to be justified.

Conclusion: The wealth-tax assessments were invalid for want of jurisdiction, and the annulment of the assessments was upheld.

---