TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kumar Agarwal and Shri Anand Kumar Agarwal. These three partners were existing assessees in their individual capacity as well as separately existing assessees in the capacity of HUFs (being represented by them) as partners of the firm, M/s New Alankar Jewellers. The firm was also regular assessee. 4.1 On 19th Jan., 2000, the IT Department carried out a search action at the business premises of the partnership firm as well as at the residential premises at Sarrafa Mohalla, Chatarpur, which, as per the Revenue, was the residence of Shri Ajay Kumar Saraf, Vijay Kumar Saraf and Anand Kumar Saraf. Since the copy of search warrant is not on record, it is gathered from the copies of Panchnama placed at pp. 19 and 36 of the assessee's paper book Vol. (0) that the same would have been in the name of Shri Ashok Sarraf, Vijay Sarraf, Anand Sarraf and Ajay Sarraf (Agarwal). 4.2 During the course of search at the alleged residential premises, gold jewellery weighing 1,101 gms. (gross weight), documents relating to the purchase of agricultural land in the name of Vijay Kumar, shares worth Rs. 30,000 in the name of Ajay Kumar, cash of Rs. 39,650 from the room of Shri Anand Kumar and docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the AO mentioned in Col. 4 of the following: 2. The transfer of records has been considered essential for administrative convenience and co-ordinated investigation. Schedule Sl. No. Name of the assessee Assessed with To be centralised with (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. M/s Alankar Jewellers (BF), Chatarpur ITO, Ward Chatarpur Dy. CIT (Inv.) Circle 2(1), Jabalpur. 2 to 7 not relevant 8. Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Chhotelal, P/o M/s New Alankar Jewellers, Chatarpur. " '' 9. not relevant 10. Shri Anand Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Chhotelal, P/o M/s New Alankar Jewellers, Chatarpur. '' '' 11. not relevant 12. Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Chhotelal, P/o M/s New Alankar Jewellers, Chatarpur. '' '' 13 to 20 not relevant. 5. Thereafter, the Dy. CIT, Jabalpur, issued notice under s. 158BC of the IT Act on 5th June, 2000, and since the notices in all the three cases are in the same language and for the sake of convenience, the notice in the case of Vijay Kumar Agarwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cases, are as under: Undisclosed income computed by AO On account of undisclosed investment In Jewellery (Rs.) In Agrl. land (Rs.) In Shop (Rs.) Undiscl-osed cash (Rs.) In shares (Rs.) Total(Rs.) Total income after order of CIT (Rs.) 1. Vijay Kumar 1,98,330 1,14,500 1,00,000 — — 4,12,830 33,000 2. Ajay Kumar — — 1,00,000 — 30,000 1,30,000 Nil 3. Anand Kumar — — 1,00,000 30,000 — 1,30,000 Nil 10. On appeal, the CIT(A) as per orders dt. 4th April, 2003, deleted the whole of undisclosed income in the cases of Ajay Kumar, Anand Kumar (individuals). 10.1 So far as the case of Vijay Kumar (individual) is concerned, the CIT(A) deleted the whole of the undisclosed income, considered by the AO on account of alleged undisclosed investment in agricultural land and in shop. So far as investment in gold jewellery is concerned, the CIT(A) accepted the gold jewellery weighing 1,001 gms., as disclosed and sustained the addition on account of alleged undis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants was asked to clarify the position and rectify the defect with respect to the status of the appellants. The counsel explained that since the partners of the firm, M/s New Alankar Jewellers, were HUFs and not individuals, the CIT, Jabalpur, had transferred the jurisdiction of HUFs from Chatarpur to Jabalpur and not of individuals; the notices issued under s. 158BC of the Act did not indicate the specific status, the general impression entertained by the appellants was that the assessments of block period were being made in the case of partners of M/s New Alankar Jewellers and not of individuals. The counsel further submitted that in view of these facts, the appellants were under the impression that they were called upon to furnish the returns of undisclosed income of HUFs and that was the reason that they had furnished the returns of undisclosed income in the status of HUFs. The counsel further submitted that the AO, having completed the assessments after considering the returns in the status of HUFs, the impression was further strengthened that the assessment orders for block period dt. 30th Jan., 2002, were in cases of partners (HUFs) and the status mentioned in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the status of individuals, which means that the appeals could be filed only by the individuals and not by HUFs. Consequently, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that if the appeals are taken to have been filed by the HUFs then the same may be dismissed as not maintainable. 17. I have considered the rival submissions and to decide the issue, have to consider the facts relating to this issue and as have been revealed from the records, which are as under: From the copies of Panchnama, dt. 19th Jan., 2000, copies of notices under s. 158BC of the Act, dt. 5th June, 2000, in all the three cases, the order of the CIT, transferring the jurisdiction under s. 127 of the Act, the returns filed by the partners of the firm, i.e., HUFs, the notices issued under ss. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and the assessment orders for block period, which reveal that; (i) Search action was on the basis of search warrant in the names of four persons, namely, Vijay Kumar Saraf, Ajay Kumar Saraf, Anand Kumar Saraf and Ashok Kumar Saraf. (ii) The Panchnama was in the names of Ashok Saraf, Vijay Saraf, Anand Saraf and Ajay Saraf (Agarwal). (iii) Notices under s. 158BC of the Act w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the jurisdiction of partnership firm and its partners from ITO, Chatarpur, to Dy. CIT, Jabalpur, the jurisdiction over individual cases of all the three appellants remained with ITO, Chatarpur, and if that is the case, then the assessments for block period completed by Asstt. CIT, Gwalior, are without jurisdiction and, therefore, illegal and bad in law. (ii) The second objection raised by the counsel was that the jurisdiction over the firm and its partners' HUFs was transferred by CIT, Jabalpur, from ITO, Chatarpur, to Dy. CIT, Jabalpur and, therefore, the transfer of jurisdiction from Dy. CIT, Jabalpur, to Asstt. CIT, Gwalior, was illegal and bad in law for the following reasons: (a) Under the law, jurisdiction from one station to other station can be transferred only under s. 127 of the Act and, that too, after allowing the assessee opportunity of being heard. But so far as the alleged transfer of jurisdiction from Dy. CIT, Jabalpur to Asstt. CIT, Gwalior, is concerned, neither the assessees were granted an opportunity nor have they been shown any order under s. 127 of the Act passed by the CIT. (b) In the remand report called by the CIT(A) and the assessees' reply there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving accepted the factum that the jewellery with the assessee and wife was explained and the jewellery in the name of children was very small, which was usual in Sarafa family, there was no reason for sustaining the said addition. The assessee further supported his plea by relying on the CBDT Circular No. 1916, dt. 11th Sept., 1994, and the order of Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in the case of Sulochana Devi Jaiswal 32 ITC 41. In support of the above submissions, the counsel for the assessee relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (ii) Mohd. Rafiqbhai & Ors. vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 67 TTJ (All) 191 (iii) Empire Estate vs. ITO (1992) 41 ITD 23 (Bom) (iv) T.S. Sujatha vs. Union of India & Anr. (1999) 151 CTR (Ker) 29 : (1999) 239 ITR 488 (Ker) (v) Gokul Chand vs. ITO (1995) 125 CTR (All) 146 : (1995) 211 ITR 738 (All) (vi) T.S. Sujatha vs. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 149 CTR (Ker) 343 : (1999) 238 ITR 599 (Ker) (vii) Lakshmibai vs. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 804 (Mys) (viii) Balchand Malaiya & Ors. vs. CIT (1983) 32 CTR (MP) 128 : (1983) 144 ITR 791 (MP) (ix) K. Madhvan Nambiar vs. WTO (1982) 134 ITR 695 (Ker) (x) Addl. CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the remand report submitted before the CIT(A) and assessees' reply thereupon, however seems to be that the Asstt. CIT, Gwalior, was competent to exercise jurisdiction over the case of M/s New Alankar Jewellers and its partners (HUFs) in exercise of powers of s. 127 of the Act, which, in my opinion, is not correct interpretation of the provisions in this respect. I, therefore, am of the opinion that the Asstt. CIT, Gwalior, did not have, in absence of order under s. 127 of the Act, jurisdiction over the cases of the partners of M/s New Alankar Jewellers, which were HUFs or the cases of individuals, namely, Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Anand Kumar Agarwal and, therefore, any order passed by Asstt. CIT, Gwalior, in cases of partners of M/s New Alankar Jewellers or in cases of Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Shri Anand Kumar Agarwal had to be held to be void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. 24. The assessees' next objection is that the returns had been filed in the status of HUFs, but the assessments have been framed in the status of individuals, which has vitiated the assessments framed in the status of individuals because the AO had no ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndividual cases of Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Anand Kumar Agarwal was never transferred from ITO, Chatarpur, to any other authority either at the same station or to any other outstation, meaning thereby that it was only ITO, Chatarpur, who continued to have jurisdiction over the individual cases of these three persons and once this factual position is accepted, the only conclusion is that neither the Dy. CIT, Jabalpur, nor Asst. CIT, Gwalior, had jurisdiction to frame assessments of block period in the cases of individuals—neither under s. 158BC, nor under s. 158BD r/w s. 158BC. Consequently, the assessments framed by the Asstt. CIT, Gwalior, in status of individual in the cases of three individuals on 30th Nov., 2000, are held to be illegal and bad in law and void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. 26. So far as the merits of the issue relating to undisclosed income of Rs. 33,000 raised in the case of Vijay Kumar Agarwal is concerned, I, after having gone through the decision of Tribunal, Jabalpur, in the case of Sulochna Devi, Board's Circular No. 1916, dt. 11th May, 1994, and specially the findings of the CIT(A) himself at pp. 3 and 4 of his order, wherein....