Territorial place of assessment under income tax law is not an appealable issue where the statute provides a special jurisdictional mechanism.

A transfer order describing an assessee as a registered firm did not bind the Income-tax Officer for the later assessment year, because the assessee's status and any renewal of registration had to be examined independently on that year's merits. The order therefore did not curtail the assessing authority's power to assess the assessee in the status found appropriate. The place of assessment under section 64 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was also not a justiciable appellate issue, as the Act provided a special administrative mechanism for deciding territorial jurisdiction and no appeal lay on that question. The jurisdictional objection based on place of assessment was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the description of the assessee as a registered firm in the transfer order bound the Income-tax Officer for the subsequent assessment year and curtailed his power to assess the assessee in another status or decide the request for renewal of registration; (ii) whether the place of assessment under section 64 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was a justiciable issue capable of being questioned in appeal.

Issue (i): whether the description of the assessee as a registered firm in the transfer order bound the Income-tax Officer for the subsequent assessment year and curtailed his power to assess the assessee in another status or decide the request for renewal of registration

Analysis: The transfer order referred to the assessee's earlier status as a registered firm, but the registration granted for prior years did not determine the assessee's position for the later assessment year. The claim for renewal of registration for that year remained open before the assessing authority, and the officer was required to consider it on its own merits. The transfer order did not fetter the assessing authority's jurisdiction to make the assessment in the status found appropriate for that year.

Conclusion: The description in the transfer order did not bind the Income-tax Officer, and the assessee's status for the later year had to be decided independently.

Issue (ii): whether the place of assessment under section 64 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was a justiciable issue capable of being questioned in appeal

Analysis: Section 64 allocated territorial jurisdiction to the Income-tax Officer and provided a special mechanism for determination of disputes as to the place of assessment by the Commissioner or, in appropriate cases, by the Commissioners concerned or the Central Board of Revenue. In view of that scheme, and the absence of an appealable order under section 30 against a determination under section 64, the objection based on place of assessment was not open to challenge as a justiciable appellate issue.

Conclusion: The question of the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction as to the place of assessment was not justiciable, and the answer was in the negative.

Final Conclusion: The appellate authority was correct in rejecting the jurisdictional objection based on place of assessment, and the reference was answered against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute about the territorial place of assessment under section 64 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 is not an appealable or justiciable jurisdictional issue, because the Act provides a special administrative mechanism for its determination.

---