Invalid assessment reopening, improper record transfer, unreliable evidence, jurisdictional objections upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals and the assessee's cross objections, upholding the AAC's decisions. The reopening of assessments under Section 148 was deemed invalid due to pending assessment proceedings, the transfer of assessment records was found improper as it did not comply with the required procedure under Section 127, the slips used as evidence were considered unreliable, and jurisdictional objections were upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening assessments under Section 148.
2. Validity of the transfer of assessment records.
3. Reliability of slips used as evidence.
4. Jurisdictional objections and procedural compliance under Sections 124 and 127.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening Assessments Under Section 148:
The primary issue was whether the assessments for the years in question could be validly reopened via notices under Section 148 issued on 13-8-1970 and 1-9-1970. The validity of reopening depended on whether earlier assessments were pending based on returns filed by the assessee. The Department contended no returns were filed and no assessments were pending. However, evidence such as applications for adjournments, notices under Section 143(2), and other communications indicated that returns were indeed filed and assessment proceedings were ongoing. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening was invalid as the assessment proceedings were pending, making the notices under Section 148 improper.

2. Validity of the Transfer of Assessment Records:
The transfer of assessment records was another critical issue. The records were transferred from the ITO, Ujjain to the ITO, Beawar based on the assessee's address being in Beawar. The Tribunal found that the transfer was not effected under Section 127, which requires an order from the CBDT or the Commissioner with a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Instead, the transfer was made under Section 124, which was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision that the transfer was invalid as it should have been done under Section 127.

3. Reliability of Slips Used as Evidence:
The reliability of slips dated 26-2-1969 and 10-3-1969, which indicated no returns were filed, was questioned. The AAC found no similar slips in the assessment records for other years, and the Office Manual did not prescribe the use of slips. The slips were small and not written in the usual manner of order sheets. The Tribunal agreed with the AAC that these slips could not be relied upon as they were not in accordance with the prescribed procedure and appeared to be an attempt to justify the Department's case. Hence, the slips were deemed unreliable.

4. Jurisdictional Objections and Procedural Compliance Under Sections 124 and 127:
The jurisdictional validity of the transfer and the assumption of jurisdiction by the ITO, Beawar was scrutinized. The Tribunal noted that the transfer was not at the instance of the assessee and was done by the ITO, Ujjain/CIT, Bhopal. The transfer should have been made by the CBDT under Section 127, not under Section 124, which pertains to jurisdiction within the limits of an area assigned by the Commissioner. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's finding that the transfer was invalid as it was not made following the proper procedure under Section 127.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Department and the cross objections filed by the assessee, upholding the AAC's findings on all issues. The reopening of assessments under Section 148 was invalid, the transfer of assessment records was improper, the slips used as evidence were unreliable, and the jurisdictional objections were justified.

---