TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 261/KOL/2020 (Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited) The assessee is impugning the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 29.11.2019 passed in A.Y. 2013-14, which has arisen against the assessment order dated 30.03.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assesee has taken eleven grounds of appeal. However, on perusal of the grounds, it revealed to us that basically three-folds of grievance are being raised by the assessee, namely- (a) in Grounds No. 2 to 6, the assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer for not allowing the deduction of Rs. 87,50,000/- claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (b) In Grounds No. 7 & 8, the assessee has submitted that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer for considering disallowance of Rs. 87,50,000/- under normal provisions for computing book profit and thereby erred in calculating the book profit at Rs. 4,17,01,736/- as against returned book profit of Rs. 3,29,51,736/-. (c) The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in charging interest under section 234C of the Income Tax Act. 2.1. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resent two appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the separate orders of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 02.12.2019 passed on the appeals of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. 3.1. The assessee has taken two grounds of appeal in A.Y. 2013-14 and three grounds of appeal in A.Y. 2014-15. 3.2. Ground No. 1 in A.Y. 2013-14 is similar with Ground No. 1 in A.Y. 2014-15. In this ground of appeal, the assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowances of deduction amounting to Rs. 35,00,000/- and Rs. 17,50,000/-, which were claimed by the assessee under section 35(1)(ii) for grant of donation to SHG&PH i.e. School of Human Genetics and Population Health. 3.3. Ground No. 2 is common with Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2014-15. In this ground, the assessee has not raised any specific grievance. In A.Y. 2014-15, it has raised one more ground of appeal whereby it has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 13,12,500/-, which was claimed deduction @ 175% in respect of donation of Rs. 7,50,000/- to Maitribani Institute of Experimental Research & Foundation. 3.4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reference to the statements, for appreciating the affairs of SHG&PH, recorded during post-survey enquiry in their cases. He has made reference as to how the donors went to the Settlement Commission and admitted the fact that they have provided only accommodation entries on commission based. All these materials were confronted to the assessee. 5. ITA No. 23/KOL/2020 M/s. Coalsale Co. The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 24.12.2019 passed for A.Y. 2015-16. 5.1. The assessee has raised five grounds of appeal, but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) amounting to Rs. 17,50,000/-. 5.2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income electronically on 27.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,43,82,590/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee has paid a donation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h regard to the material unearthed during the course of search by the Investigation Wing in the case of recipient of the donation, but the assessee failed to give any plausible reply to rebut such donation except by submitting that it has given donation under a bonafide belief. Accordingly ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee vide assessment order dated 25.10.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 7. ITA No. 133/KOL/2021 The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 31.03.2021 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 7.1. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, however, its grievances revolve around two issues, namely- (a) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment; (b) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,25,000/-, which was claimed as a deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. In rest of the grounds, the assessee has raised supporting arguments qua these two issues. 7.2. Brief facts of the case are that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing an assessment order on 02.03.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 9. ITA Nos. 2316 & 2317/KOL/2019 The present two appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against separate orders of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 28.08.2019 passed in A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. 9.1. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 5,25,000/- in A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs. 5,25,000/- in A.Y. 2014-15. 9.2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee his filed its return of income on 20.12.2013 and 28.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 13,08,950/- and Rs. 13,74,490/- respectively in A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014- 15. All the returns of the assessee involved in both the years were for scrutiny assessment. It was found that the assessee has given bogus donation to School of Human Genetics and Population Health in both the years and such claim of the assessee has been disallowed. The facts of the present appeals are common with ITA No. 2448 & 2449/KOL/2019 discussed in immediate preceding paragraph in the case of assessee M/s. Hiralal Bhandari as represented the legal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) on a donation of Rs. 20,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The ld. Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with regard to the material unearthed during the course of search/survey in the case of recipient of the donations. He confronted the assessee as to how this recipient has admitted before the Settlement Commission that it has provided accommodation entries after receipt of commissions. The assessee was unable to submit any evidence in support of its claim except pleading bonafide belief of its donation. It was submitted by the assessee that since recipient was enjoying the status of a Research Institute when it has made donation. If any subsequent enquiry was made, it unearthed that such recipient was receiving bogus donation beyond the control of the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He disallowed the claim of the assessee and made the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- by way of an assessment order dated 29.11.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 12. ITA No. 2449/KOL/2019 (M/s. Hiralal Bhandari) The ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of this Act, then the donors will be entitled for a deduction equivalent to 175% of donation given by them. Therefore, as far as scope of this Section or meaning/instruction of the language employed in this section is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. In other words, interpretation of the meaning of section is not involved, which requires reference to any judgment from the authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble High Courts as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16. The dispute relates to the factum of giving donations to a genuine institution for claiming deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Arguments: 17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments of donation by all these appellants were made to the Institution, who was enjoying the benefit of registration with the Department. In other words, the section contemplates approval of prescribed authority for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TAT has allowed such a deduction to the assesses. He pointed out that some of the decisions in Kolkata have been upheld upto the Hon'ble High Court also. He pointed out that across India, such deductions have been allowed to the assessees. 19. All the ld. Counsels have been by and large took the same line of argument. They only placed on record different ITAT orders in their paper book, wherein identical issues were involved. 20. Originally Shri Amal Kamat, ld. CIT(DR) appeared in the case of Tarasafe International Private Limited assisted with Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R. Thereafter Shri Arup Chatterjee, ld. Sr. D.R. represented the Revenue. In the case of Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited, a paper book has been filed by the Revenue running into 268 pages. In this paper book, the Revenue has placed on record the papers recovered during the course of survey conducted at the premises of the recipient of the donations. It has also placed on record the copy of the Settlement Order passed in the case of the recipient. Such order is available on pages no. 52 to 62. On pages no. 63 to 81, a list of the alleged bogus donors has been placed by the Revenue. Such list has been p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Supreme Court, he emphasized all other orders of the ITAT and the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court are not to be followed. 22. Since this decision was supplied by the Revenue after conclusion of the arguments, therefore, we re-fixed the hearing and confronted the assessee with this latest position of law. However, Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata - vs.- Sanskriti Sagar. In this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Batanagar Education & Research Trust and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. In this case also, registration under section 12AA was cancelled by the ld. Commissioner by exercising the powers under section 12AA(3) of the Act. This cancellation was set aside by the Tribunal and Revenue carried the matter before the Hon'ble High Court, who upheld the order of the ITAT by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. On the strength of this decision, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Hon'ble High Court has explained the ratio laid down in Bat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of India, Ministry of Science and Technology Gazette Notification u/s 35(1) (ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Notification No. 4/2010 28.01.2010 Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Direct Taxes) 24. The Governing Body members of the recipient are as under: (a) Dr. Madhumita Roychoudhury President (b) Dr. Shyamal Kumar Nandy Vice-President (c) Dr. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar Secretary (d) Ms. Basanti Rauth Assistant Secretary (e) Mrs. Moumita Raghavan Treasurer (f) Mr. Gautam Das Executive Member (g) Dr. Debashis Mukherjee Executive Member 25. The Society, carried scientific research in the field inherited genetic diseases, cancer genetics (leukemia) and Geriatric disorders in the research lab. The donee had pursued research in the community understand the population, i.e. monarchial age, nutrition status and reproductive health issues. It is stated that at the level of community welfare, the society had trained teachers and counselors to take care Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder including Cystic Fibrosis Children workshops of Arts & Crafts, which had been published in various national GBP international j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pen Drive) NIL NIL NIL 28. The main allegation and reason for the survey against the donee was that it had received huge amount of donations on which the applicant society earned service charges. During the survey operation, statements of the Secretary and the Treasurer of the Society were recorded in which they admitted the fact of accepting donations through certain mediators and refunding the same after keeping 3% - 8% as service charges for the society. 29. In 2019, one of us was posted ITAT, Ahmedabad Vice-President (Judicial Member), when first time such issue came up for consideration. Deduction of Rs. 8,75,000/- was claimed by the assessee and we passed the order in ITA No. 1943/AHD/2017. This order was followed in ITA No. 2318 of 2017 since in the first appeal tax effect was less, therefore, it was not challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court. However, the second order in the case of Principal CIT-3 -vs.- M/s. Thakkar Govindbhai Ganpatlal HUF was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in Tax Appeal No. 881 of 2019. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has dismissed the appeal of Revenue and upheld the order of the ITAT. The Hon'ble High Court has reproduced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation supplied by the survey tern of Calcutta. He has not specifically recorded statement of representative of the donee. He has not brought on record a specific evidence wherein donee has deposed that donations received from the assessee was paid back in cash after deducting commission. On the basis of general information collected from the donee, the donation made by the assessee cannot be doubted. Neither representatives of the donee have been put to cross-examination, nor any specific reply deposing that such donation was not received, or if received the same was repaid in cash, has been brought on record. In the absence of such circumstances, donation given by the assessee to the donee, on which the assessee no mechanism to check the veracity, can be doubted, more particularly, when certificate to obtain donation has * been cancelled after two years of the payment of donation. It is fact which has been unearthed subsequent to the donations. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground". 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the f act that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure throug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Let us take note of the material placed before us persuading us to record a finding of fact being a last authority on this aspect. There is no dispute that a survey under section 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s. SHG&PH as well as M/s. Herbicure Healthcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation (in short 'HHBRF') because Abhilasha Tradecom Pvt. Limited obtained the accommodation entry from this Institution and issue is involved in ITA No. 132/KOL/2021. In this survey, statement of the Secretary of M/s. SHG&PH was recorded. The Secretary has admitted that the Trust has not used such amount in any research activity, rather it has received the donation in a connived manner on the alliance of certain brokers. They have pleaded specifically in their statement of facts before the Settlement Commission that certain brokers have approached them for augmentation of their revenue in this fraudulent manner and without realising the seriousness of its impact upon the economy in general and Income Tax Department in particular. They involved in this activity. 34. The Department thereafter recorded the statements of the brokers, who have arranged these claim of bogus deduction for the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21 concerns mentioned in the Annexure-A. Ans.: I will submit all the required details by 27.03.2015. Q.8. Kindly furnish the names, postal addresses and phone numbers of the directors /proprietors of the 21 concerns mentioned in the Annexure-A. Ans.: I will submit all the required details by 27.03.2015. Q.9. Please go through the Annexure-A in which total billing is shown as Rs. 1118848138/-. Please state where this amount has been transferred after bogus billing and how. Ans.: This amount has been transferred to the donors through 'Hawala Opeators'. First I transferred this amount to various parties, who was raised bogus bill on my concerns by bank channel through layering. Then from these parties, I have go cash in return which is transferred to the donors in cash through 'Angarias/howala'. The details of bogus bills raised by my concerns will be provided by 27.03.2015. Q.10. Kindly explain the modus operandi of your business in the case of SHG&PH. Ans.: The donor will deposit cheque/RT GS in the account of SHG&PH. The SHG&PH will transfer the amount to my concerns which is mentioned in Annexure-A. Sometimes they used to transfer the amount after deducting their com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd, it is a misplaced argument at the end of the appellants. It is to be appreciated that recipient came into existence in 1993, it might have been working on charitable objects and got approval for the purpose of recognition of Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation first time on 17.06.2010. There might be a good intention at the end of the recipient but it has detracted its objectives and indulged in fraudulent activities. The fraud of this magnitude cannot be done without an organised planning where involvements of alleged brokers have come. Thus operative force in the minds of all decision-maker in donors organisation/individual was acting with a fraudulent intent in giving donation through broker in this manner. The ld. CIT(Appeals) in the case of Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited has posed the following questions to the assessee:- (a) What was the purpose of this donation? (b) Whether such donation has been given to the School in the past or in the future? (c) How the assessee came to know about the activities of the Trust? (d) What influence the assessee to give this donation to this Institution other than deduction under section 35(1)(ii). (e) The appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also. In the case of Batanagar Education & Research Trust, the facts are that during the course of survey at the premises of SHG&PH, and in post survey inquiry statement of Shri Ramendra Lahiri, Managing Trustee of the assessee, i.e. Batanagar Society was recorded. The Secretary, Smt. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar and Treasurer Smt. Moumita Raghavan of SHG&PH have categorically deposed in their statements that source of income of SHG&PH was the money received in the form of donations from Corporate Bodies as well as from individuals. The assessee Batanagar Society was selected by the brokers, who have arranged the donations to SHG&PH as a conduit for receiving the donations from SHG&PH. This donation was to be returned back to those Corporate Houses and individuals in cash after layering the transaction and the Batanagar Education & Research Trust would also retain commission income for such an activity. On the basis of that, its registration was cancelled by the ld. Commissioner (Exemption) by exercising the powers under section 12AA(3). This order was upheld by the ITAT. However, on further appeal, Hon'ble High Court has reversed this order but Hon'ble Supreme Court restored this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is claim and proved that, with a criminal mind all such donors have layered their transaction in such a manner which apparently appears to be genuine, but in reality not genuine. They took such a step to commit fraud, an economic offence against the economy of the country. 43. The bonafide of the assessees can be appreciated if they have demonstrated that they have given the donations in the past or subsequent periods to some Institution of national importance, such as Tata Research Centre, certain Hospitals, etc. but none of them has given such a donation except a small amount of few thousand in the case of Abhilasha Tradecom Pvt. Limited. The moment Assessing Officers have dispelled onus discharged by the assessee, then it was their duty to prove the genuineness of their claim with circumstantial evidence as pointed out by the ld. Commissioner in the case of Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited, i.e. what was the purpose of the donation; whether such donation has been given to the School in the past or in the future; whether the Corporate Houses have discussed in the meeting and the Management Committee passed the Resolution for giving the donations; what influenced the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide Interim order dated 20.07.2022, which reads as under:- 20.07.2022:- Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an application dated 20th July, 2022 pleading the rein that notice issued under section 143(2) dated 04.09.2014 for scrutinising the return of assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 is without jurisdiction. He submitted that Board has issued a Circular bearing No.1/2011 [F. No.187/12/2010- IT(AT)] dated 31 .01 .2011, whereby Board has assigned pecuniary jurisdictions to different Officers for passing the assessment orders. According to the ld. counsel for the assessee, if monetary limit of more than Rs. 30 lakhs exceeds in the declare d income, then jurisdiction to scrutinise the return as well as passing assessment order would be with Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, whereas in the present case, no tice under section 143(2 ) has been issued by an Assessing Officer i.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10 (3), Kolkata, Code No. WBG, Ward- 10(3). According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, since the income of the assessee was more than 2 crores of rupees, the refore, ld. Assessing Officer was not competent to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The above appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat according to the Instructions, the notice under section 143(2) ought to have been issued by Dy. Commissioner/Asstt. Commissioner and, therefore, in the absence of such notice, no assessment ought to have been passed. For buttressing his contention, he put reliance upon the six ITAT decisions, namely- (i) Shri Sukumar Chandra Sahoo in ITA No. 2073/KOL/2016 dated 27.09.2017- 'C' Bench; (ii) Proficient Commodities Pvt. Limited in ITA No. 1346/KOL/2016 dated 18.03.2020- 'A' Bench; (iii) Anil Kumar Khetawat in ITA No. 1136/KOL/2019 dated 26.05.2022 - 'C' Bench; (iv) Shri Debabrata Kayal in ITA No. 6/KOL/2021 dated 11.02.2022 - 'C' Bench; (v) Shri Krishnendu Chowdhury in ITA No. 1153/KOL/2015 dated 18.11.2016 - 'D' Bench; (vi) Reliance is also placed on the decision of Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd. Reported in 330 ITR 491 holding that CBDT Instructions for completion of assessment are binding on the AO which was followed in ITAT, Kolkata 'B' Bench in the case of Ajanta Financial Services Pvt. Limited in ITA No. 1426/KOL/2011. 47. In his next-fold of contention, he submitted that it is a jurisdictional issue and there cannot be any waiver on a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t under-paid the tax in the manner, serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend his office or to produce, or cause to be produced, any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return; Provided that no notice under clause (ii) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished]". 50. Before construing the meaning of this clause, we would like to make reference to the CBDT's guidelines published in the Master-Guide to Income Tax Act by Taxman. On page 3.196, the publisher has published the process of selection of cases for scrutiny for Corporate Assessee in A.Y. 2006-07. This has been followed in Financial Year 2007-08, i.e. Assessment Year 2008-09 and in other years. For example, we are taking up these Instructions for A.Y. 2006-07, which read as under:- "Proceedure for selection of cases for scrutinies- For Corporate assesses: Assessment Year 2006-07 1. In supersession of earlier Instruction on the above subject, the Board herby lays down the following procedure for section of returns/cases of Corporate Assessees for Scrutiny ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 10A and/or 10B with export turnover exceeding Rs. 10 crore. (p) All cases of contractors whose gross contractual receipts exceed Rs. 5 crore and net income declared is less than 5% of gross contractual receipts. 3. Where a case does not fall in the categories specified at para 2 above but the CCIT/DGIT (International Taxation)/ DGIT (Exemptions), of his own motion or on the matter having been brought to his notice by an authority below, is satisfied that the case needs to be taken up for scrutiny, the CCIT/DGIT (International Taxation)/DGIT (Exemptions), for reasons to be recorded in writing, may direct the Assessing Officer to take up the case for scrutiny. 4. The CCIT/DGIT (International Taxation)/DGIT (Exemptions), may issue suitable guidelines for reducing/increasing the number of cases selected under specific clauses of para 2, for proper management of the workload as well as to avoid large scale transfer of cases form one jurisdiction to another. 5. All returns filled in response to notice issued u/s 148 shall be selected for scrutiny. 6. In addition to above, selection of cases out of returns processed on AST will be made through a Computer Assisted Scrutiny (CAS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to particular authorities on the basis of monetary limit. It is a subsequent step and for this purpose, we take note of the CBDT Instruction No. 119, which reads as under:- "CBDT -Section 119 of the Income Tax Act-Instructions to subordinate authorities- Instructions regarding income limits f or assigning cases to Deputy Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners/ITOs. Instruction No. 1/2011 [F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] dated 31.01.2011. References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs /ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the mat4ter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned hardship. An increase in the monetary limits is also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore, been decided to increase the monetary limits as under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ier Benches on this aspect. In none of the orders relied upon before us, this issue has been examined with this angle. It is pertinent to observe that it is a group of 13 appeals, wherein we have decided the main issue against the assessees. It will ultimately travel to the Hon'ble High Courts in further appeal. Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to make a reference to the Special Bench and withholding the adjudication of one appeal, which is a lead appeal. The orders referred by the ld. Counsel for the assessee have not dealt with all these aspects. It is also pertinent to observe that on distribution of work amongst the ITOs, vis-a-vis Addl. Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner even no order for transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 is required to be passed. This is an exercise after the process of selection of the case for scrutiny. Once computer identifies a particular case for selection of scrutiny, then on the basis of PAN data, notice is to be issued upon the assessee providing an opportunity to the assessee that its case has been selected for scrutiny assessment and kindly submit what the assessee wants to submit in support of the return. As observed earlier, the proce....