AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7,28,20,781 45,46,63,514 2008-09 2682/Ahd/2012 27,23,57,161 3,75,99,718 23,47,57,443 2009-10 2683/Ahd/2012 52,98,70,420 7,31,50,193 45,67,20,227 2008-09 2684/Ahd/2012 53,82,25,441 7,43,03,627 46,39,21,814 Total 187,30,78,727 2. These stay applications were originally moved before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Surat bench on the ground that, at the point of time, the office of the assessee was situated in Surat, and, as a result of creation of Surat bench vide Notification dated 24th July 2017, issued by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the jurisdiction in respect of these appeals, and resultantly in respect of the related stay applications as well, was said to vest in the Surat bench. However, these stay applications were not accepted by the Surat bench since the related appeals were not yet transferred to the Surat bench. It was in this backdrop that the present stay applications were filed before us. We were urged to hear these stay applications as the related appeals were still lying in Ahmedabad, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....position, when suddenly, during the course of the last hearing, it was pointed that the office of the assessee, as also the Assessing Officer, in the appeal taken up for hearing, was situated in Surat at the relevant point of time, and, the jurisdiction of hearing the appeal should vest in Surat bench. It was under this misconception of legal position that the assessee had agreed for transfer of his appeals to Surat bench. We are then informed that as on now that office of the assessee, as also that of the assessee's Assessing Officer, is located in New Delhi, and the assessee has made repeated efforts to get these appeals transferred to New Delhi benches, but without any success. Our attention is then invited to the order dated 4th February 2014 passed by the then President rejecting request for transfer of all the appeals to New Delhi. There is nothing more, according to the learned counsel, that the assessee could have done to take the matters to a logical conclusion and ensure an expeditious disposal of the matter. The appeals remain to be disposed of, and, therefore, the assessee has no choice but to seek an extension of stay. In the meantime, with the setting up of Surat benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring on 9th May 2018, as some further clarifications from the learned representatives were considered necessary, and we have heard the learned representatives on those issues. We will set out their arguments, as may be necessary, in the later discussions. 5. We find that so far as the jurisdiction of the bench to hear in appeal is concerned, the legal position is quite clear and unambiguous. The very notification relied upon by the learned senior counsel, in paragraph 4, states as follows: 4. The ordinary jurisdiction of the bench will be determined not by the place of business or residence of the assessee but by the location of the Assessing Officer. 6. As this notification is issued under rule 4(1) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, it has a force of law and it is does not leave any discretion with the bench- or, for that purpose, with anyone other than Hon'ble President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, so far as determination of the jurisdiction for hearing of an appeal is concerned. In view of this unambiguous legal position, the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel, with respect to determination of jurisdiction on the basis of loca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to take judicial call on the appeals and applications, automatically changes as a corollary to, and as an offshoot of, the change in the location of the change of the Assessing Officer. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that the assessment of each year is not entirely on standalone basis but in continuity, and that when the new Assessing Officer takes over from the earlier Assessing Officer, as a result of order under section 127, the earlier Assessing Officer becomes completely functus officio so far as the assessee is concerned. It is thus not only the power to assessee the income of the assessee in future but all powers and duties in relation to the assessments framed earlier that gets transferred to the new Assessing Officer. Once jurisdiction under section 127 is transferred, the officer earlier having the jurisdiction to assessee income of the assessee cannot at all be said to be Assessing Officer of the assessee. As observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Aar Bee Industries [(2013) 357 ITR 542 (Del)], rejecting the plea of the assessee that Hon'ble High Court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal depends u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attainable. (CIT v Teja Singh (S) (1959) 35 ITR 408, 414, 415 (SC). The provisions in a taxing statute dealing with machinery for assessment have to be construed according to the ordinary rules of construction, that is to say, in accordance with the clear intention of the legislature which is to make a charge levied effective. Applying the principle laid down by the Privy Council in CIT v Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC) the Supreme Court in Gursahai Saigal v CIT (1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC) stated that the proper way to deal with a provision laying down machinery for assessment is to give it an interpretation which 'makes the machinery workable'. In Banarsi Debi v ITO (1964) 53 ITR 100 (SC), the Supreme Court however stated that the above rule cannot be made applicable to a charging section, which has to be construed strictly. See also Longman's Green & Co. Ltd. (1932) 17 TC 272, 282 (Per Finlay, J); Robinson v Cory (1934) 18 TC 411, 425 (CA); Drummond v Collins (1915) 6 TC 525, 540 (HL) per Lord Parker.) The court should avoid a construction that attributes irrationality to the legislature and prefer a construction that would render the provision constitutionally valid. (Varg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer has changed. On the strength of these arguments, learned counsel urges us to hold that the jurisdiction of the bench, for hearing the appeals and applications, should be decided on the basis of the location of the Assessing Officer framing the assessment impugned in appeal. It is then submitted that once President of the Tribunal, vide order dated 4th February 2014, has specifically rejected the request, filed by the Commissioner (DR), for transfer of all these appeals to Delhi benches, which has jurisdiction over the present Assessing Officer, this rejection order constitutes a "special order" under rule 4(1) determining jurisdiction of Ahmedabad bench in respect of the appeals of the assessee. A copy of the letter dated 31st October 2013 addressed by the then CIT (DR) to the then President of the ITAT, as also President's order rejecting the same, is also filed before us. It is thus contended that the jurisdiction must not be shifted to Delhi benches. Learned Commissioner (DR), however, does not share this perception in principle. He submits that once jurisdiction for assessment is transferred from one Assessing Officer to another Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to hear the appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal depends upon the location of the Assessing Officer at the point of time when the assessment order was framed. While holding so, Their Lordships have observed that "It is a well accepted principle that there can be only one Assessing Officer in respect of a case. At the point of time when the present appeals were filed, the Assessing Officer insofar as all the cases of the respondent were concerned, was the Assessing Officer at Delhi. The fact that the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal had passed the impugned orders or the fact that the initial assessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer at Jammu would not be relevant for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the court at the point of time at which an appeal under Section 260A of the said Act is filed. It is the date on which the appeal is filed which would be the material point of time for considering as to in which court the appeal is to be filed. On the dates on which the present appeals were filed, the Assessing Officer of the respondent was the Assessing Officer at New Delhi and, therefore, this court would have jurisdiction to entertain these app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment order, that plea is categorically rejected by Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of Aar Bee Enterprises (supra), and no judicial precedent to the contrary thereto has been cited before us. We humbly bow before higher wisdom of Hon'ble Court above. As for the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of VF Arvind Brands Pvt Ltd (supra), which was handed over to us by the learned counsel, it holds that the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction at the time of filing of appeal must govern the jurisdiction of the bench of the Tribunal to hear and determine the appeal, and, in doing so, it has followed the decisions of the coordinate benches in the cases of ACIT Vs Chandrasekhar Transport [(2006) 101 TTJ 84 (Vizag)] and ACIT Vs Lata Jain [(2013) 56 SOT 102 (Luck)] but then both of these decisions were rendered much before Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment was rendered on 2nd July 2013. These decisions, therefore, must give way to the judicial precedents from Hon'ble Courts above. As regards the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Motorola India Limited [(2010) 326 ITR 174 (P&H)], and other judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of V F Arvind Brands (supra) does refer to the Aar Bee Industries (supra) but does not deal with the same or analyse the same. As a matter of fact, the conclusions arrived at by the coordinate bench are contrary to the scheme of law visualized by Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Aar Bee Industries (supra). It is only elementary that what constitutes binding force of a judicial precedent is the rationale for the decision, i.e. its ratio decedendi, and not the conclusions arrived at in the judicial precedent. In the oft quoted landmark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt Ltd [(1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC)], it is observed that "...... while applying the decision to a latter case, the Courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this Court, to support their reasonings". The emphasis, clearly, has to be on the "principles laid down by the decision" rather than the conclusions arrived at in the decision. Ironically, however, the coordinate ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which has been subsequently followed in the case of Aar Bee Industries (supra) as well. While so distinguishing the earlier decision, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that "We have gone through both these decisions with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and while the accepted general principle is that the situs of the Assessing Officer is what determines the High Court having jurisdiction over the case, none of these decisions deal with one important aspect of the case (because it did not arise), namely, what would happen when the situs of the Assessing Officer is changed by an order passed under section 127 of the Act, as has happened in the present case. One important fact in both the above decisions was that even though there was a transfer of jurisdiction from one place to another, the proceedings in respect of the relevant previous year had not been transferred from one jurisdiction to another". The legal position based on which decision was taken has undergone fundamental change. As the law stands now, the situation is materially different and, as a corollary to the legal position in force now, the jurisdiction of the bench of the Tribunal automatically c....