TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pril 23, 1999, in Lucknow, an appeal against that was decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in Lucknow on April 27, 2000, and a further appeal was decided by the Tribunal in Lucknow on May 26, 2003. It appears that an appeal under section 260A of the Act is pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in respect of the order passed by the Tribunal. 3. In the second round of litigation (after remand of the case to the Assessing Officer), the three authorities under the Act, namely, the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal passed orders in Lucknow and it is against the second order passed by the Tribunal on July 22, 2005, that the present appeals under section 260A of the Act have been filed in this court. 4. According to learned counsel for the assessee, since all the proceedings and decisions had taken place in Lucknow, this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain these appeals which, he says, may be returned to the appellant for presentation in the proper court. 5. We are not in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee and are of the view that we have t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lying with the principles of natural justice. 8. In exercise of power conferred by section 127(2) of the Act, a notice was issued to the assessee on June 20, 2005, giving an opportunity of being heard in connection with the proposed transfer of the case from the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-I, Lucknow, to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-VI, New Delhi. The notice was issued to the assessee and also to others of the Sahara group. The relevant portion of the notice dated June 20, 2005, reads as follows : " The Sahara group consists of several companies, firms and individuals which are presently assessed to tax at various places, including at Lucknow, Delhi and Kolkata. The group has over a period of time diversified its business activities and across cities and towns of the country. There is, however, an inter-lacing and inter-connection of funds and of business activities amongst the various entities of the group. 2. The Sahara group had earlier filed an application before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) North, New Delhi for the transfer of cases being assessed in the Central Circle, Lucknow on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. The order dated July 29, 2005, was challenged by the assessee before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court but by a judgment and order dated February 8, 2006, the Bench did not find any arbitrariness or illegality in the order of transfer and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee. The decision of the Allahabad High Court is reported as Sahara Airlines Ltd. v. Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) [2006] 286 ITR 33. We are told that the decision of the Bench was taken up to the Supreme Court but the petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed. Consequently, it is quite clear that the order of transfer under section 127(2) of the Act has now attained finality and cannot be reopened, even collaterally. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that since the assessment orders had already been passed in respect of the assessee and a decision had also been taken by the Tribunal, there was no question of transferring the jurisdiction in respect of the assessee from one place to another. We are of the view that this argument is completely misplaced. The Explanation to section 127(4) of the Act tells us what the word " case" mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h 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. 16. In Suresh Desai [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Delhi), the relevant assessment year was 1980-81 and as mentioned in the decision, the assessment records of the petitioner were ordered to be transferred from Bombay to Delhi but the transfer did not pertain to the assessment year 1980-81. Similarly, in Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 359 (Delhi) the relevant assessment year was 1993-94 but the assessment records that were transferred to Delhi were those pertaining to the assessment years 1988-89, 2000-01 and 2001-02. It is for this reason that the effect of the transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 of the Act was not discussed either in Suresh Desai [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Delhi) or in Digvijay Chemicals [2007] 294 ITR 359 (Delhi) because that question, on the facts of the case, did not arise for consideration. Learned counsel for the assessee, therefore, cannot draw any assistance from any of the two decisions cited by him. 17. On the other hand, the effect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the dis allowance of Rs. 50,12,45,795 made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest on deposits ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 53,86,65,000 made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash credits in the nature of share capital, share premium and share application money ? 4. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 28,59,490 made on account of expenses pertaining to earlier years by accepting the claim of the assessee of reversal of excess transfer fee credited in earlier years ? 5. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,01,750 out of telecasting fee being commission paid ? 6. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer did not " follow the guidelines" given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order dated March 13, 2001 ? 7. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right....