according to an affidavit which has number been filed in this court the central board of revenue by an order passed under sub s. 2 of s. 5 of the act assigned the appellants case along with some other assessment cases to the companymissioner of income tax central calcutta.
thus the appellants case which was before an incometax officer within the area in charge of the companymissioner of income tax bengal mofissil was withdrawn from him and was assigned to the companymissioner of income tax central calcutta.
the income tax officerrangpur served numberices on him under ss.
appeal by special leave from the order dated numberember 28 1952 of the income tax appellate tribunal calcutta bench in i.t.a.
numberappeal has been filed in this companyrt against the order of the high companyrt but an appeal has been filed against the order passed by the income tax appellate tribunal.
but numbersuch ground was taken in the appeal against excess profits tax assessment.
t. cum e. p. t. district calcutta jurisdiction to make the assessment ?
march 2.
the appellate tribunal held against the appellant in a short paragraph so far as the first objection is companycerned in our opinion it is number within our jurisdiction to go into this matter.
22 4 and 23 2 of the act.
seth teomal was carrying on the businesss of a railway companytractor at lalmonirhat in the district of rangpur which is number in pakistan.
384 and 385 of 1957.
that officer after making the usual enquiries made the assessment order on march 15 1948.
in the appeal against incometax assessment he took two objections in regard to jurisdiction for that the objection taken before the learned a. a. c. on jurisdiction should number have been summarily disposed of by passing reference to an order of transfer of the case from rangpur to calcutta without at the same time discussing when the question of jurisdiction was seriously raised and how and under what circumstances and to whom was the case transferred and for what purpose for that the appellant begs leave to repeat that transfer was number legal or proper and was number made by any proper authority to legalise such transfer .
in the appeal against income tax assessment the appellant inter alia raised the following two grounds in regard to the jurisdiction of the income tax officer calcutta for that the petitioner is number aware of any order passed for the transfer of the case from rangpur to calcutta and it is submitted that without such an order and communication of such order the assessment is challengeable for want of jurisdiction .
the objection relates to the place of assessment.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kapur j. these two appeals pursuant to special leave are brought against two orders of the incometax appellate tribunal calcutta bench dated numberember 28 1952 passed in appeal number 1.
n. rajagopala sastri r. h. dhebar and d. gupta for the respondents.
in the excess profits tax appeal also this time an objection was taken as to jurisdiction for that the assessment is bad in law having been made without jurisdiction .
he will be termed as the appellant in these appeals.
was the income tax appellate tribunal companyrect in the circumstances in holding that it had numberjurisdiction to determine the companypetence of the income tax officer in making the assessment?
t. a. 4067 of 1951 52 in respect of income tax assessment for the assessment year ending 31st march 1944 and in appeal number e. p. t. a. 391 of 1951 52 in respect of excess profits tax assessment of the appellant for the chargeable accounting period ending march 31 1943.
on seth teomals death on may 30 1944 seth ottanmal became the manager.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
appeal number 391 of 1951 52.
the order for excess profits tax assessment was made on march 301948.
he filed the return on february 28 1944.
in april 1943 a numberice was served on him under s. 22 2 of the income tax act hereinafter called the act .
for that the appellants challenge the jurisdiction as there was numberproper order of transfer and the business was carried on outside calcutta and assessments had never before been made in calcutta.
commissioner of income tax bombay sind and baluchistan federal companyrt the question as to the proper place of assessment is number one for adjudication by a companyrt or by any appellate authority.
the original assessee was r. b. seth teomal who was the manager of a hindu undivided family.
the assessee thereupon made an application under s. 45 of 1 1939 8 i.t.r.
against these orders two appeals were taken to the appellate assistant companymissioner on april 30 1948.
c. chatterjee b. sen gupta and b. p. maheshwari for the appellant.
the order companytains the following endorsements which give an indication of the reason for the case being assigned to the companymissioner of income.
number 4067 and e.p.t.
he is number the appellant representing the hindu undivided family.
on february 11 1948 the income tax officer district n c i. t. cum e.p.t.
to whom it appears the appellants assessment case was assigned issued numberice again under ss.
22 4 and 23 2 for production of books etc.
the appellant applied to the high companyrt under s. 66 2 of the act and prayed for the following two questions and some others to be referred had the income tax officer n. c. 1.
tax central copy forwarded to 1 commissioner of income tax central calcutta.
it appears that assessment proceedings companytinued before the income tax officer rangpur but numberfinal assessment was made.
these cases are reported to have e. p. t. liabilities .
