TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this respect on record. We find force in the said plea in-as-much as if the assessee's CO is decided by the Tribunal in its favour, the Revenue's appeal may not survive for consideration; the assessee's challenge being to the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment, so that in the event of the assessee succeeding, it is liable to be quashed. The ld. DR also concurred to the said proposition, when put across to him by the Bench during hearing; no prejudice being caused to the Revenue. Accordingly, we, though in departure of the usual practice of hearing cross appeals together, in view of the peculiar circumstances and complete independence of the issue/s under appeal, take up the assessee's Cross Objection for the present. 3. The assessee's argument is that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Sri Ganganagar ('Jt. CIT' for short) issuing notice u/s. 148 on 14-10-2004 (paper-book page 37) for the relevant year, who also recorded the reason(s) for the same on 14-10-2004 (PB pg. 36), is not its Assessing Officer ('AO' for short). Only its, i.e., the assessee's, AO is the competent to record the reason/s and issue notice u/s. 148 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... terms of the procedure laid down in its respect under section 124 itself. Any grievance in relation to the jurisdiction of the AO proceeding to assess any person, as held by the hon'ble courts of law, including the apex court and the hon'ble jurisdictional high court, is not appeal-able and, in fact not justiciable, being only a defect of procedure not invalidating the end action; the Act not treating the allocation of functions to various authorities as one of substance but as one of procedure. The courts, therefore, have no role to play in the matter. Reference in this context is drawn to the decisions, as in the case of Rai Bahadur Seth Teomal v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 9 (SC); CIT v. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi [IT Appeal No. 54 of 2004, dated 5-2-2008]; Hindustan Transport Co. v. Inspecting Asstt. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 326/[1992] 63 Taxman 246 (All.); Indira & Co. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 466 (Raj.); Smt. Sohani Devi Jain v. ITO [1977] 109 ITR 130 (Gau.)(FB); Udaipur Distillery Co. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 516 (Raj.); Roopnarain Ramchandra v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 171 (All.). All these decisions are with reference to section 124 of the Act or the corresponding provision of the 1922 Act. Here it may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board or other income-tax authority authorised by it may have regard to any one or more of the following criteria, namely :- (a) territorial area; (b) persons or classes of persons; (c) incomes or classes of income; and (d) cases or classes of cases. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,- (a) authorise any Director General or Director to perform such functions of any other income-tax authority as may be assigned to him by the Board; (b) empower the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that the powers and functions conferred on, or as the case may be, assigned to, the Assessing Officer by or under this Act in respect of any specified area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases, shall be exercised or performed by an Additional Commissioner or an Additional Director or a Joint Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The hon'ble apex court has in the case of West Bengal State Warehousing Co. v. Indira Puri Studio (P.) Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 3865 of 2001 dated 19-10-2010) held that the use of the word 'means' in a definition signifies a hard-and-fast definition. The same would, therefore, have to be strictly applied. The Revenue has not, despite several opportunities afforded thereto, brought on record any order/direction/notification u/s. 120(4)(b). The Notification No. 1 of 2001-02 dated 01-08-2001 by the Commissioner is only in pursuance to the power conferred on him under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 120 of the Act. Though it bears reference to the Notification No. SO No. 732(E) dated 31-07-2001, the same is not on record. Further, the preamble to the Notification No. 1/2001-02 (supra), as well as its contents, unequivocally convey of it as being a general order passed in exercise of the powers u/ss. 120(1) and 120 (2) by the CIT, Bikaner, authorizing, among others, Jt. CIT, Sri Ganganagar (refer serial no. 2 thereof). The same authorizes him, i.e., Jt. CIT, Sri Ganganagar, to exercise the powers and perform the functions in respect of the persons or the class of the persons specifi....