TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s jurisdiction for wealth tax purposes was with ITO, Distt. I(IV). Ludhiana earlier, i.e. till 21st Dec., 1978, when an order was passed under s. 127(1) by the CIT transferring the jurisdiction to the IAC (Asst.), Patiala, which is not disputed by the assessee factually or on merit. Subsequently on 4th July, 1979, another order was passed by CIT transferring the cases above Rs. 5 lakhs and jurisdiction was assigned to ITO, Special investigation Circle, Patiala, which too on merit or a fact is not disputed by the two parties before us. Subsequently, on 4th July, 1979, another order was passed by CIT under s. 125A(1) by which the jurisdiction was transferred to IAC Patiala. Last of all, it was on 15th Dec., 1979 that another order was passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T Act and also had nothing to say about the transfer vide order dt. 4th July, 1979 under s. 124(1) or earlier transfer. He, however, submitted that there being no controversy about the fact that the two assessments are framed by IAC (Asst.), Ludhiana, to whom at no stage these cases were transferred under s. 127(1), as the order passed on 15th Dec., 1979 was under s. 124(1), and therefore, the orders framed were without jurisdiction and were rightly cancelled. He submitted as per order of 21st Dec., 1979, the jurisdiction was exclusively with IAC, Patiala and he had the jurisdiction for the same. He submitted that proviso 4 on page 7 talks only of officers and not IACs. Since none of the orders were passed under s. 127 i.e. s. 8B dt. 4th Ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved by their Lordships as under: "It is well known that an appellate authority has the jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct all errors in the proceedings under appeal and to issue, if necessary, appropriate directions to the authority against whose decisions the appeal is preferred to dispose of the whole or any part of the matter afresh unless forbidden from doing so by the statute." In the instant case it is the statute which warrants the transfer under s. 8B of the WT Act and s. 127(1) of the IT Act and makes the grant of opportunity, to the assessee before the transfer of jurisdiction, obligatory for the Revenue which having not been done, this case instead supports the contention that of the assessee. On Supreme Court deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee is not saved by showing that reasons were there. In the said case, their Lordships even extracted on P. 283 s. 127(1) with Explanation and provisions given thereunder and after the same, held on p. 285 of the report as under: "We are clearly of opinion that the requirement of recording reasons under s. 127(1) is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee." Then further, in the same report, it has been observed by their Lordships that "when law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order effecting prejudicially the interest of any person, who can challenge the order in Court, it ceases to be a mere ad....