1 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 , B , IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1224/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (PAN: AAACR0829F) Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing 08.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 06.09.2019 For Appellant Shri Devesh Podder, Advocate For Respondent Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal has been preferred by assessee against order of Ld. CIT(A)- 21, Kolkata dated 22.04.2019 for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At outset itself, Ld. AR drew our attention to legal issue that has been raised for first time before this Tribunal, which is as under: 2. For that appellant was originally been assessed by Ld. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi since 2007. return for year under consideration was filed on 30.09.2015 against which notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by Ld. DCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi. As matter of fact Ld. DCIT 21(1), New Delhi had no jurisdiction over appellant company. Further order u/s. 127 was passed by Ld. CIT, Central Patna vide which current AO got jurisdiction over appellant company. Ld. AO proceeded on basis of 143(2) issued by Ld. DCIT, Circle-21(1) New Delhi. No notice under 143(2) was issued at Ranchi or current AO. As such, as matter of fact no valid notice u/s. 143(2) was issued against return filed, as such, assessment framed thereby is ab initio void and fit to be quashed. 3. From perusal of aforesaid ground of appeal, we note that issue which is canvassed before us is pure legal issue. As held by Hon ble Supreme Court in NTPC Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), such legal issue can be raised before this Tribunal and accordingly we admit this legal ground raised for first time before us by assessee 2 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 though vehemently opposed by Ld. CIT, DR. Moreover we note that this legal issue goes to root of matter and since all material facts for deciding this legal issue are available at time of hearing, parties were heard on this issue only with understanding that if assessee does not succeed, then appeal will be re-fixed for hearing on merits. 4. brief facts pertaining to legal issue is that assessee company s Headquarters is at 101, Pragati Towers, 26 Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110007. appellant was initially assessed by DCIT, Circle-15(1), New Delhi. By order dated 08.10.2008 passed u/s 127(1) by Ld. CIT, Del. V, New Delhi, jurisdiction over appellant s case was transferred to charge of DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi. Pursuant to order dated 08.10.2008, income-tax assessments from AY 2007-08 and onwards were passed by said DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi. For assessment year 2015-16 i.e. year under consideration, return of income was electronically filed by assessee on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,27,03,820/-. Subsequently notice u/s. 143(2) (paper book page 3&4) dated 28.07.2016 was issued by ACIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi to assessee and this was followed by notice u/s 142(1) dated 30.06.2017 issued by same officer. Upon receipt of notice u/s 142(1), assessee furnished its letter dated 17.07.2017 objecting to validity of notices on ground that officer issuing notices did not have jurisdiction over appellant s case. Subsequent to issuing of said notices, Ld. Pr. CIT-7, New Delhi issued show cause notice dated 07.08.2017 proposing to transfer jurisdiction over appellant s case to DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata under administrative control of Pr. CIT (Central), Kol-2, Kolkata (page 6 of paper book). On receipt of said show cause notice, appellant furnished its objection vide letter dated 16.08.2017 (page 7 of paper book)which is reproduced as under: 3 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 5. Appreciating objections raised by assessee (supra), Ld. Pr. CIT, Delhi-7 did not proceed any further. Pr. CIT, Central Patna however issued notice dated 24.10.2017 (page 8 of paper book) proposing centralization of case records with ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata and sought assessee s objections, if any, to proposed transfer. Thereafter, by order u/s 127 of Act dated 03.11.2017 (page 9 of paper book), assessee s case records were transferred to charge of ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata. On receiving jurisdiction over assessee s case in terms of order u/s 127 dated 03.11.2017, ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata issued notice u/s. 4 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 142(1) for relevant assessment year. Subsequent to issue of notice u/s 142(1), ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata framed assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2017. Narrating foregoing facts and referring to notices and orders passed on subject, Ld. AR submitted that before completion of assessment, no notice u/s 143(2) was issued to appellant by AO who held valid jurisdiction over appellant s case and in that view of matter order passed u/s 143(3) was without jurisdiction and is, therefore, bad in law and nullity in eyes of law being coram non judice. 6. It was brought to attention of Bench by Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. AR, that in this case, admittedly notice u/s. 143(2) was issued only once. Such notice was issued on 28.07.2016 by ACIT, Circle 21(1), Delhi, who admittedly did not had valid jurisdiction over assessee s case after case records of appellant were transferred by virtue of order u/s. 127 dated 08.10.2008 passed by ld. CIT, Delhi-V. We also note that subsequent to passing of order dated 08.10.2008 and till case records were again transferred u/s 127 dated 03.11.2017 to charge of present AO, all orders during such intervening period were passed by DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi. ld. AR therefore submitted that in June 2016 valid notice u/s 143(2) in relation to return filed for AY 2015-16 could have been issued only by DCIT, Central Circle-1,Ranchi and by none else. He pointed out that during entire assessment proceedings conducted by Revenue for AY 2015-16, only one notice u/s 143(2) was issued and that too by ACIT, Circle 21(1), New Delhi. Based on such notice alone, ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata ultimately framed assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2017. Ld. AR therefore submitted that notice u/s 143(2) issued by ACIT, Circle 21(1), New Delhi was without jurisdiction and therefore illegal, subsequent proceedings initiated u/s 142(1) and consequent order u/s 143(3) passed by ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata was also ab initio void and therefore illegal. In support of this proposition ld. AR placed reliance on judgment Hon ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC). He further submitted that legal infirmity in issue of 5 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 notice u/s 143(2) was non-curable defect and which could not cured even with terms of Section 292BB of Act. 7. Per contra, Ld. CIT, DR Shri Radhey Shyam, vehemently opposed legal issue raised by assessee and contended that it was never in dispute that appellant s head quarter was situated at 101, Pragati Tower, 26 Rajendra Place at New Delhi. For buttressing this fact, he drew our attention to Form 36 filed before us by assessee and contended that even as on date (presently)as also in appeal filed before this Tribunal, same address at New Delhi is reflected. Thus, according to Ld. CIT, DR, since address of principal office of appellant falls under territorial jurisdiction of ACIT, Cir-21(1), New Delhi, he had rightly issued notice u/s. sec. 143(2) of Act. In aforesaid factual circumstances, according to Ld. CIT, DR, since AO, New Delhi enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction and he had issued notice u/s 143(2), same was legally valid. He therefore submitted that ground raised by assessee did not have any merit. He further claimed that if assessee had any objection regarding jurisdiction of ACIT, Cir-21(1), New Delhi, assessee was at liberty to intimate same or bring it to notice of AO, New Delhi fact of jurisdiction of AO at Ranchi. According to Ld. CIT, DR, without raising objection within month s time after receipt of notice u/s. 142(1) or 143(2), as envisaged u/s. 124(3) of Act, assessee is stopped/shut-out from doing so. Thereafter, in support of various contentions raised, Ld. CIT, DR furnished written submission, relevant extracts thereof are reproduced as under:- i) Jurisdiction is administrative issue and not subject matter for purpose. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Abhishek Jain has held that Sub-section(4) and (6) of Section 124 and for that matter sub-section (2) and (4) of Section 124 after amendment w.e.f 1st April, 1988 are procedural sections. They relate to administration and exercise of powers/ authority by Assessing Officers/ Income Tax Officers and are not part of substantive law. That Act i. e. Income Tax Act 1961 being complete code deals with substantive and procedural aspects. Section 120/124/127 govern process of procedure for assessment and not subject matter or its purpose. They relate to conduct of Assessing Officer/Income Tax Officers and assessees in respect of assessment proceedings. It is matter of merely process. irregularity in procedure need not result in annulment unless statute specifically stipulates to contrary. appellate authorities have right to put clock back and direct Income Tax Officer/Assessing officer to follow procedure notwithstanding difference between mandatory and directory procedural norms. 6 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 ii). provision on sec 127 of act does not speak of transfer of jurisdiction but transfer of case. Being enactment aimed at collecting revenue, Legislature did not intend collection of revenue to be bogged down on account of technical plea of jurisdiction. It has, therefore, prescribed limit up to which plea of jurisdiction may be raised. As provided in Section 124(5)(a), right is lost as soon as assessment has been completed. Even where right is exercised before assessment is completed, question is to be decided by Commissioner or by Board. Courts do not come into picture. S.S. Ahluwalia (supra), examines several decisions which were relied upon by assessee in said case and were held to be not germane and applicable. This decision also explains provisions of Section 127 of Act and scope and ambit of said power, to observe that section does not speak of transfer of jurisdiction but transfer of case as defined in Section. iii). issue of jurisdictions cannot be appealable if assessee fails to raise issue of jurisdiction within stipulated time before AO. a) In Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39, Federal Court had held that objection to place of assessment could not be raised in appeal against assessment under Income Tax Act, 1922. b.) This view was affirmed by Supreme Court in RaiBahadur Seth Teomal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,[1959] 36 ITR 9(SC) holding that objection as to place of objection under 1922 Act could not be made subject or issue before appellate forums including Tribunal and reference to High Court. c.) position is no different under Act i.e. Income Tax Act 1961, as was elucidated by Division Bench of this Court in Kanji Mal & Sons vs. C.I.T. (1982) 138 ITR 391 (Del), wherein reference to said two decisions was made and it was observed that if assessee fails to raise objection before Income Tax Officer within time, he will be shut out from raising question altogether. iv). concept of concurrent jurisdiction and inherent jurisdiction is acknowledged by Hon ble courts and relied on Hon ble Delhi High court decision in case of S.S. Ahluwalia and Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO. 8. After taking us through case laws/issues contended as aforestated, Ld. CIT, DR argued that in present case, ACIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi had power to assess income accruing or arising within territorial area at Delhi as it is not case of assessee that said officer did not have jurisdiction in view of location of assessee s Principal Office address at Delhi. It was urged by Ld. CIT, DR that section 124(5) of Act saves assessment made by assessing officer provided that assessment does not bring to tax anything other than "the income accruing, arising or received in that area over which assessing officer exercises jurisdiction . However, Ld. CIT, DR clarified that notwithstanding Section 124(5) of Act which saves action of 7 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 AO in certain cases, said section does not postulate multiple assessments by different assessing officers, or assessment of part or portion of income [see Kanjimal& Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, (1982) 138 ITR 391 (Del)]. Thus, according to Ld. CIT, DR, it is necessary that Assessing Officers having concurrent jurisdiction ensure that only one of them proceeds and adjudicate. This, according to Ld. CIT, DR, is purport and objective behind sub-section (2) to Section 124 of Act. 9. Further it was pointed out by Shri Radhey Shyam, Ld. CIT, DR that it is undisputed that in earlier years also case of assessee was assessed at New Delhi up to AY 2007-08 and jurisdiction was transferred u/s 127 of Act only thereafter. Therefore, according to Ld. CIT, DR, it is clear that AO, New Delhi had concurrent jurisdiction over assessee. According to Ld. CIT, DR, similar issue came up before Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Abhishek Jain Vs ITO (405 ITR 1). He submitted that view expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of SS Ahluwalia (225 Taxman 131) and legal position explained therein, was followed in Abhishek Jain vs. ITO (supra).The Ld. CIT, DR took us through order of Hon ble Delhi High Court in S. S. Ahluwalia s case (relevant paras 34 to 39) and also relevant paras 3 & 19 of judgment in Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO (supra).With reference to findings recorded in these judgments, Ld. CIT, DR contended that ACIT, Circle-21(1), Delhi had territorial jurisdiction over assessee s principal office which continued to be situated at 26 Rajendra Place, New Delhi. In circumstances therefore he urged that said ACIT, Circle-21(1), Delhi had validly issued notice u/s. 143(2) of Act. Since notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 28.07.2016 by ACIT, Circle-21(1), Delhi was claimed to be legally valid, ld. CIT, DR submitted after order u/s 127 dated 03.11.2017 was passed by ld. Pr. CIT, Central Patna, ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata could validly proceed to complete assessment by only issuing notice u/s 142(1), in terms of Section 127(4) of Act. It was ld. CIT, DR s forceful contention that proceedings which ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata undertook were legally valid in terms of express provisions of Section 127(4) according to which successor AO could proceed with assessment from stage at which predecessor AO had left proceedings. ld. CIT, DR 8 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 therefore strongly urged that legal plea raised by assessee for first time before this Tribunal did not have legs to stand and, therefore, deserves to be rejected. In particular, in support of this contention, he drew our attention to para 9 of his written submission, which is reproduced as under: 9. In this case, it is matter of record that no objection was raised, over jurisdiction before A.O within one month from date of issue of notice. A.O. was having territorial jurisdiction over case and there was concurrent jurisdiction. It is to refers decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of HarshadChiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. &Anr., (2005) 7 SCC 791, which classifies and draws jurisprudential difference amongst - territorial or local jurisdiction; pecuniary jurisdiction; .and jurisdiction over subject matter. As far as territorial or pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection should be taken at earliest possible opportunity and for before settlement of issues and not at subsequent stage. In view of above discussion, objections as to jurisdiction of assessing officer in present case cannot be equated with lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They relate to place of assessment. Income-Tax Officer would not per se lack jurisdiction, albeit he had concurrent jurisdiction with DCIT. 9.1 issue of validity of jurisdiction could have been raised before A.O. after expiry of one month from date of issuance of notice u/s 143(2). But it has been raised before CIT(A). CIT(A) has ignored concept of concurrent jurisdiction. Instruction No. 119 is administrative in nature, which is though binding on A.O., but not on appellate authorities. Notice issued u/s 143(2) was based on concurrent jurisdiction. Notice was legally issued within prescribed time limit. 9.2 question of jurisdiction shall be determined by Principal Chief Commissioner/Director-General as per Section 124(4). Therefore, as per decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of S.S. Ahluwalia, fallowed and strengthened by decision of Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO, appellant loses its right once assessment is-completed for challenging of jurisdiction. Keeping in view all these facts, it is requested that order of CIT may be cancelled and assessment of AO may be upheld and matter may be decided on merit, rather on technical issue of jurisdiction. 10. In his rejoinder, Ld. AR relied on decision of ITAT E Bench, Delhi in ITO Vs. NVS Builders (P) Ltd. ITA No. 3729/Del/2012, AY 2006-07 dated 08.03.2018 and order of C Bench of this Tribunal in case of M/s. Lexmark International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT &Ors in ITA No. 268, 72, 235 & 2058/Kol/2017 passed on 28.09.2018. He drew our attention to fact that on receipt of notice u/s. 142(1) dated 30.06.2017, appellant by its letter dated 17.07.2017 had objected to validity of said notice on ground of jurisdiction. He pointed out that appellant had similarly objected to show cause notice dated 07.08.2017 issued by Pr. CIT-7, New Delhi u/s 127 by its letter dated 16.08.2017. He pointed out that having appreciated fact that jurisdiction over appellant s case did not vest with him, Ld. Pr. CIT-7, New Delhi 9 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 had dropped proceedings u/s 127, which he had initiated by his notice dated 07.08.2017. He further brought to our attention that after Ld. Pr. CIT-7, New Delhi dropped proceedings initiated by him for centralization of appellant s case with ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata, subsequent proceedings u/s 127 for such proposed centralization were taken up by Pr. CIT, Central Patna who held valid jurisdiction over appellant s case at relevant point in time. ld. AR therefore urged that if actions of Pr. CIT-7, New Delhi and Pr. CIT, Central Patna are considered cumulatively and harmoniously then only conclusion that one can draw is that Pr. CIT-7, New Delhi had tacitly admitted that neither he nor any officer acting under his jurisdiction could exercise jurisdiction over appellant s case for purposes of provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 after CIT-V, New Delhi had passed order u/s 127 dated 08.10.2008 transferring jurisdiction to charge of ACIT, Central Circle, Ranchi. Drawing attention to these jurisdictional facts, ld. AR submitted that it was abundantly clear that in June 2016 when notice u/s 143(2) was issued, ACIT Circle-21(1), New Delhi did not have jurisdiction over appellant s case and consequently therefore notice u/s 143(2) issued by him was non-est in eyes of law. Consequently therefore when AO at Kolkata proceeded with assessment subsequent to such illegal notice, consequent order u/s 143(3) was equally bad in law and liable to be cancelled. 11. We have heard both sides and perused records. Before us Ld. AR of assessee has raised jurisdiction of AO at Kolkata who passed assessment order without issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of Act, which according to Ld. AR, is mandatory to assume jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s. 143(3)/144 of Act. According to ld. AR, non-issue of legally valid notice u/s 143(2) is not curable defect, as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon (supra). However, main contention of Ld. CIT, DR opposing this legal issue raised by assessee is that, assessee s principal office continues to be situated at 26 Rajendra Place, New Delhi,which falls under territorial jurisdiction of ACIT, Circle-21, New Delhi, and thushe had concurrent jurisdiction over assessee s case, as envisaged for purposes of Section 120 and 124 of Act. According to Ld. CIT, DR, even as per section 127 of Act, which deals with 10 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 transfer of jurisdiction of case, sub-section (4) of section 127 stipulates that there is no necessity to re-issue of any statutory notices already issued by AO or AO from whom case is transferred. According to ld. CIT, DR therefore, since admitted position is that ACIT, Circle-21, New Delhi was having territorial jurisdiction over assessee s principal office situated at Rajendra Place, New Delhi, by virtue of jurisdiction bestowed u/s. 120 and 124 of Act, he had rightly issued notice u/s. 143(2) of Act within stipulated time for assessment of AY 2015-16. In circumstances therefore when case was transferred to ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata, AO at Kolkata was not required to re-issue notice u/s. 143(2) of Act which had been already been issued by AO at Delhi. According to Ld. CIT, DR therefore, there is no merit in contention of assessee. For objectively adjudicating this issue,it is therefore necessary to look at facts, for which bird s eye view of undisputed facts which are noted from documents placed on record, aretabulated in following chart. These facts are important to decide legal issue before us. Sl. Date Events No. DCIT, Circle-15(1), New Delhi was AO of 1. Upto 08.10.2008 assessee on basis of territorial jurisdiction. CIT-V, Delhi transferred jurisdiction over 2. On 08.10.2008 assessee s case u/s. 127 to DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi. From 09.10.2008 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi was AO of 3. to 03.11.2017 assessee for all proceedings under Act. ACIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi issued notice 4. 28.07.2016 u/s. 143(2) to assessee. ACIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi issued notice 5. 30.06.2017 u/s. 142(1) to assessee. Assessee objected to jurisdiction of ACIT, 6. 17.07.2017 Circle-21(1), New Delhi. Show Cause Notice/proposal for centralization 7. 07.08.2017 of assessee s case at Kolkata issued by Pr. CIT- 7, Delhi. Assessee objected to jurisdiction of Pr. CIT- 8. 16.08.2017 7, New Delhi Pr. CIT, Central Patna issued Show Cause 9. 24.10.2017 Notice for centralization of assessee s case under charge of Pr. CIT, Central 2, Kolkata. 11 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 Pr. CIT, Central Patnapassed order u/s. 127 centralizing assessee s case with ACIT, 10. 03.11.2017 Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata under charge of Pr. CIT, Central 2, Kolkata. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkataintimatesthe 11. 09.11.2017 assessee u/s. 129 being succeeding AO for AY 2015-16. Notice u/s 142(1) issued by ACIT, Central 12. 05.12.2017 Circle-3(1), Kolkata for AY 2015-16. Assessment order framed u/s. 143(3)of Act 13. 29.12.2017 by ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkatafor AY 2015-16 12. In view of aforesaid dates and sequence of events first legal question to be adjudicated is, whether ACIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi can be said to have had concurrent jurisdiction (territorial jurisdiction) over assessee merely because its principal office was situated at Rajendra Place, New Delhi and in that view of matter he was competent to issue valid notice u/s. 143(2) of Act for AY 2015-16. This question needs to be answered in light ofthe fact remains that, by earlier order dated 08.10.2008 passed u/s 127(1) of Act, then CIT-V, New Delhi had transferred jurisdiction over assessee s case from DCIT, Circle-15(1), New Delhi to charge of DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi. If answer to preceding question is in affirmative, then next question to be adjudicated is whether assessment order u/s. 143(3) of Act dated 29.12.2017 by ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata was legally valid even though no valid notice u/s. 143(2) of Act was issued. 13. For understanding legal position with regard to jurisdiction of Income tax authorities, it is pertinent to make reference to provisions of Section 120, 124, 127 and 129 of Act which are reproduced herein below: 120. Jurisdiction of income- tax authorities (1) Income- tax authorities shall exercise all or any of powers and perform all or any of functions Conferred on, or, as case may be, assigned to such authorities by or under this Act in accordance with such directions as Board may issue for exercise of powers and performance of functions by all or any of those authorities. 12 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 (2) directions of Board under sub- section (1) may authorise any other income- tax authority to issue orders in writing for exercise of powers and performance of functions by all or any of other income- tax authorities who are subordinate to it. (3) In issuing directions or orders referred to in sub- sections (1) and (2), Board or other income- tax authority authorised by it may have regard to any one or more of following criteria, namely:- (a) territorial area; (b) persons or classes of persons; (c) incomes or classes of income; and (d) cases or classes of cases. (4) Without prejudice to provisions of sub- sections (1) and (2), Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,- (a) authorise any Director General or Director to perform such functions of any other income- tax authority as may be assigned to him by Board; (b) empower Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that powers and functions conferred on, or as case may be, assigned to, Assessing Officer by or under this Act in respect of any specified area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of (5) directions and orders referred to in sub- sections (1) and (2) may, wherever considered necessary or appropriate for proper management of work, require two or more Assessing Officers (whether or not of same class) to exercise and perform, concurrently, powers and functions in respect of any area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases; and, where such powers and functions are exercised and performed concurrently by Assessing Officers of different classes, any authority lower in rank amongst them shall exercise powers and perform functions as any higher authority amongst them may direct, and, further, references in any other provision of this Act or in any rule made thereunder to Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be references to such higher authority and any provision of this Act requiring approval or sanction of any such authority shall not apply. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any direction or order issued under this section, or in section 124, Board may, by notification in Official Gazette,, direct that for purpose of furnishing of return of income or doing of any other act or thing under this Act or any rule made thereunder by any person or class of persons, income- tax authority exercising and performing powers and functions in relation to said person or class of persons shall be such authority as may be specified in notification. 124. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 120, Assessing Officer has beenvested with jurisdiction over any area, within limits of such area, he shall have jurisdiction- 13 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 (a) in respect of any person carrying on business or profession, if place at which he carries on his business or profession is situate within area, or where his business or profession is carried on in more places than one, if principal place of his business or profession is situate within area, and (b) in respect of any other person residing within area. (2) Where question arises under this section as to whether Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, question shall be determined by Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner; or where question is one relating to areas within jurisdiction of different Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by Board or by such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as Board may, by notification in Official Gazette, specify. (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question jurisdiction of Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made return under sub- section (1) of section 139, after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with notice under sub- section (1) of section 142 or subsection (2) of section 143 or after completion of assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after expiry of time allowed by notice under sub- section (1) of section 142 or under section 148 for Making of return or by notice under first proviso to section 144 to show cause why assessment should not be completed to best of judgment of Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier. (c) where action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after completion of assessment, whichever is earlier.) (4) Subject to provisions of sub- section (3), where assessee calls in question jurisdiction of an- Assessing Officer, then Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with correctness of claim, refer matter for determination under sub- section (2) before assessment is made. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any direction or order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officer shall have all powers conferred by or under this Act on Assessing Officer in respect of income accruing or arising or received within area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders issued under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 120.] 127. Power to transfer cases (1) Pr. Director General or Director General or Pr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard in matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other 14 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom case is to be transferred and Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom case is to be transferred are not subordinate to same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, (a) where Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction case is to be transferred may, after giving assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard in matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass order; (b) where Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, order transferring case may, similarly, be passed by Board or any such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as Board may, by notification in Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where transfer is from any Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) and offices of all such officers are situated in same city, locality or place. (4) transfer of case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be made at any stage of proceedings, and shall not render necessary re-issue of any notice already issued by Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom case is transferred. Explanation: In section 120 and this section, word "case", in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after date of such order or direction in respect of any year. 129. Change of incumbent of office Whenever in respect of any proceeding under this Act income- tax authority ceases to exercise jurisdiction and is succeeded by another who has and exercises jurisdiction, income- tax authority so succeeding may continue proceeding from stage at which proceeding was left by his predecessor: Provided that assessee concerned may demand that before proceeding is so continued previous proceeding or any part thereof be reopened or that before any order of assessment is passed against him, he be reheard. 14. bare reading of foregoing provisions reveal that Assessing Officer (AO) has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders issued by Board under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120 of Act. direction u/s. 120(1) is given by Board, for exercise of powers and performance of functions by all or any of Income Tax Authorities, as specified u/s. 116 of Act. As per sub-section (2) of Section 120 of Act, Board may delegate its powers to Income tax authorities 15 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 as specified in Section 116, for issuing orders in writing, for exercise of powers and performance of functions by all or any of other Income Tax Authorities who are subordinate to that authority. We also note that concurrent jurisdiction can be vested in more than one AO, which is discernible by conjoint reading of Section 120(5) with Section 120(2) of Act. Section 124(1) of Act confers jurisdiction on AO, by virtue of jurisdiction vested by any direction or order issued by CBDT under sub-section (1) and / or (2) of section 120 of Act. AO is vested with jurisdiction u/s. 124 of Act, over any area within limits of such area, he shall have jurisdiction over any person (assessee) carrying on business or profession and if place at which he (assessee) carries on his business or profession is situated within area ear-marked for him (AO); or if that person s (assessee s) business or profession is carried on in more places than one, then if principal place of his business or profession is situated within jurisdictional territorial area, AO gets jurisdiction. Other than assessees who are not in Business or Profession, in their cases, AO will be vested with jurisdiction if person (assessee) is residing within territorial area ear-marked by virtue of directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120 of Act speaks about. However, when there is question to be determined as to whether AO has jurisdiction to assess any person then it would be decided by authorities as stipulated in sub-section (2) of section 124 of Act by Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners concerned, as case may be). In case, if question is one relating to areas within jurisdiction of different Income tax authorities(Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners as stipulated therein) then if other Income-tax authority also agrees then question will be resolved mutually or else it will be referred to CBDT. So, once AO of assessee is vested with jurisdiction u/s. 124 read with sec. 120(1) & (2) of Act and issues statutory notices against assessee, no person (assessee) shall be entitled to call in question jurisdiction of AO within period prescribed under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 124(3) of Act. We also note that sec. 124(5) saves action of AO who has territorial jurisdiction over assessee in respect of income earned by assessee from territorial 16 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 jurisdiction vested in him by virtue of any directions or orders issued u/s. 120(1) or (2) of Act. So, this saving provision which saves action of AO is limited to income accruing or arising or received within limits of his territorial area as conferred to him (AO) by order under sub-sec. (1) or (2) of sec. 120 of Act and not otherwise. So, this saving provision will come into play only in first place AO is vested with jurisdiction by order/direction issued under sub-sec. (1) or (2) of sec. 120 of Act. Thus, as per scheme of Act, it can be seen that sections 120 and 124 vest jurisdiction on Income Tax Authorities and on AO respectively and, therefore, both sections i.e. sections 120 and 124 of Act must be read in conjunction and harmoniously to decide territorial jurisdiction which is prescribed by direction or orders by CBDT under sub-sec. (1) or (2) of sec. 120 of Act. 15. Having taken note of provisions of Section 120 & 124, we however find that Section 127 is separate code of its own. Section 127(1) empowers, Pr. Director General or Director General or Pr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner, as stipulated therein, to transfer any case from one or more AO subordinate to him. In other words, under Section 127(1) Pr. Director General or Director General or Pr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner, as stipulated therein, can transfer case records of assessee from one AO to another functioning under his own charge. On contrary, Section 127(2) empowers foregoing authorities to transfer of cases from AOs from his jurisdiction to AOs who are not functioning under his jurisdiction and therefore who are not subordinate to such authority. In cases covered u/s 127(2) therefore, if Pr. Director General or Director General or Pr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner, of AO to whom case of assessee is proposed to be transferred, agrees for transfer, then transfer can made u/s. 127(2)(a) of Act. In case however there is any disagreement between such stipulated authorities, matter is required to be referred to Board which in turn decides issue of transfer or Board can then authorize Income Tax authority by notification as stipulated in clause (b) of sub-sec.(2) of section 127 of Act. Sub-section(4) of Section 127 of Act provides that upon 17 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 transfer of case by authorities specified in sub-section (1) or (2) of section 127 of Act, any stage of proceedings shall not render re-issue of any notice already issued by AO or AOs from whom case is transferred. In other words, Section 127(4) saves actions of AO from whom case is transferred and allows AO to whom case of assessee is transferred to take forward proceedings from point where earlier jurisdictional AO had left. Here, it would be important to note Explanation to section 127 defines expression case . reading of said Explanation shows that expression case in relation to any person, whose name is specified in transfer order passed u/s. 127 of Act, means all proceedings under Act in respect of any year which may be pending on date of such order or direction or it may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under Income-tax Act which may be commenced after date of such order or direction of any year. This definition of expression case implies that, once transfer is made by authority specified in sub- section (1) or (2) of section 127 of Act who had jurisdiction over AO who in turn had jurisdiction over assessee/person/entity, by virtue of direction/order issued under section 120(1) or (2) of Act, then entire assessment of person i.e. pre-transfer and post-transfer as on date of transfer will stand transferred and thereafter for all purposes of Income Tax Act, AO of assessee to whom case is transferred, will be Assessing Officer in respect of said assessee for pre and post proceedings from date of transfer. In other words, once transfer order of case of assessee is issued u/s. 127 of Act effect will be that (i) all proceedings of assessee under Act in respect of any year which may be pending on date of such order will stand transferred, (ii) all completed assessment order of assessee on or before date of transfer will stand transferred and (iii) all proceedings under Act in respect of assessee which may be commenced after date of such transfer order have to be undertaken by transferred new AO. 16. In light of above discussion, we now examine facts involved in appellant s case and ascertain whether ACIT, Circle 21(1), New Delhi enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction over appellant s case so as to enable him to issue valid notice u/s 143(2) for AY 2015-16. As noted, jurisdiction over appellant s case initially 18 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 vested with ACIT, Circle 15(1), New Delhi since territorial jurisdiction over area or limits of area, where assessee s principal office was situated. vesting of jurisdiction with said officer was in terms of order/ direction of CBDT u/s. 120(1) of Act or by Income Tax Authorities (sec. 116) who were delegated powers to issue orders/directions vesting jurisdiction of assessment over authorities subordinate to it. said Assessing Officer at New Delhi enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction over appellant upto 08.10.2008. Thereafter, by virtue of order u/s 127(2) passed by ld. CIT-V, Delhi dated 08.10.2008, said AO at New Delhi was divested of his jurisdiction over appellant and jurisdiction stood transferred in favour of ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi. From plain reading of order u/s 127(2) dated 08.10.2008, we find that transfer of jurisdiction over appellant s case from charge of ACIT, 15(1), New Delhi to ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi was absolute and without reserving any right of concurrent jurisdiction over appellant at New Delhi. 17. Before us Ld. CIT, DR vehemently contented that since present assessee s principal office is at New Delhi, AO, Delhi continued to have jurisdiction as per sec. 124 read with sec. 120(1) or (2) of Act and ACIT, Circle 21(1), Delhi s action of issuing statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of Act was saved by sub-sec. (5) of section 124 of Act read with sub-section (4) of sec. 127 of Act. We are however unable to accept such contention for following reasons. For adjudicating this contention, let us first examine relevant provisions of sub-section (5) of sec. 124 of Act and sub-sec. (4) of sec. 127 of Act, which read as follows: Sec. 124(5):- Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any direction or order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officer shall have all powers conferred by or under this Act on Assessing Officer in respect of income accruing or arising or received within area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders issued under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 120. Sec. 127(4):- transfer of case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be made at any stage of proceedings, and shall not render necessary re-issue of any notice already issued by Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom case is transferred. Explanation: In section 120 and this section, word "case", in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all 19 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after date of such order or direction in respect of any year. 18. From plain reading of sub-sec. (5) of sec. 124 of Act, it is noted that though it is over-riding provision yet it has inherent limitation as prescribed in law. If one carefully reads sub-section (5) of sec. 124 of Act, then it will be noted that it starts with words Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any direction or order issued under section 120 of Act . express language employed by Legislature clearly shows that provisions of sub-sec. (5) of section 124 overrides only other provisions of Section 124 of Act and any orders/directions issued u/s. 120 of Act, which necessarily means that non- obstante clause is limited to operation of sub-section (1) to (4) of sec. 124 or direction/order issued under section 120 of Act and not with regard to any order of transfer of case of assessee made u/s. 127 of Act. In circumstances when one reads definition of case as set out in Explanation to Section 127 of Act, then it means that when Chief Commissioner or Commissioner makes order for transfer of jurisdiction in exercise of powers conferred by Section 127 of Act, from AO who is vested with jurisdiction by virtue of direction/order issued under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 120 of Act to another AO who is not vested with such jurisdiction as per direction/order issued u/s. 120(1) and (2) of Act; then by virtue of such transfer order u/s. 127 of Act, jurisdiction of AO u/s. 124 vested by virtue of order/direction vested on AO as per sec. 120(1) or (2) of Act is taken away and thus original AO is divested of jurisdiction enjoyed u/s. 124 read with sub-sec. (1) or (2) of section 120 of Act. We therefore hold that contention put forth by ld. CIT, DR that provisions of Section 124(5) being overriding in nature, ACIT Circle 21(1), New Delhi simultaneously held concurrent jurisdiction is devoid of any merit. Such interpretation is not in accord with extant provisions of Section 124(5) read with Section 127 of Act. In our opinion once order u/s 127(2) was passed on 08.10.2008 by ld. CIT-V, Delhi unconditionally transferring jurisdiction over appellant s case to charge of ACIT, Central Circle 1, Ranchi; then by virtue of such order, jurisdiction enjoyed by ACIT at New Delhi in terms of Section 124 20 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 read with Section 120(1) & (2) stood abrogated. Accordingly after 08.10.2008, ACIT at New Delhi could not have exercised any powers conferred on AO by Act for purposes of any proceedings against appellant. 19. In this regard we find that by virtue of transfer order passed by theld. CIT- V, Delhi u/s. 127 dated 08.10.2008, case of assessee was transferred with immediate effect. Pursuant to such order, DCIT, Central Circle Ranchi became AO who alone had valid jurisdiction over appellant s case till even he was divested of such jurisdiction by virtue of order passed u/s. 127(2)by thePr.CIT, Central, Patna dated 03.11.2017 as per which jurisdiction stood transferred to ACIT, Central Circle 3(1) Kolkata. We are therefore of firm opinion that in June 2016 when notice u/s 143(2) was issued, it was ACIT, Central Circle 1, Ranchi alone enjoyed sole jurisdiction over appellant s case and in that view of matter it was only this AO who could have issued valid notice u/s 143(2) for relevant AY 2015-16. We therefore have no quarrel with proposition put forth by ld. CIT, DR that when ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata received case records in terms of order u/s 127(2) dated 03.11.2017, he had no obligation to issue fresh notice u/s 143(2) because he could have continued with assessment proceedings from stage at which his predecessor would have left. However this legal proposition pre-supposes that original notice u/s 143(2) was issued by officer who held valid jurisdiction over case of assessee. We however find that although in June 2016, jurisdiction over assessee s case was vested in ACIT, Central Circle 1, Ranchi, he never issued notice u/s 143(2). On contrary notice was issued by ACIT, Circle 21(1), Delhi who, as held earlier, ceased to have jurisdiction over appellant s case after 08.10.2008. Since no notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by AO, Ranchi within stipulated time, sub-section (4) of sec. 127 of Act does not come to rescue of department. As noted earlier, AO, Delhi ceased to be AO of assessee after transfer order was passed by CIT-V, Delhi on 08.10.2008, so after such order by competent authority (which fact is not disputed before us), then CIT, Delhi became functus officio and by 21 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 virtue of it even his subordinate authority i.e. AO, Delhi was also divested of jurisdiction. For reasons as discussed in foregoing therefore we hold that in given facts of case, appellant s case was not saved by provisions of Section 124(5) as also by Section 127(4) of Act. Accordingly, contentions of Ld. CIT, DR are rejected being devoid of any merit in law as well as on facts. 20. Coming to next argument of Ld. CIT, DR that jurisdiction is administrative issue and not subject matter open for judicial intervention, we note that Hon ble Calcutta High Court in M/s. Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (infra) clearly held that, jurisdiction over subject-matter has to be conferred by law. jurisdiction in this case had been transferred by order dated 3rd September, 2012 by no other than CIT Kolkata- II, Kolkata himself. Once that was done CIT Kolkata II, Kolkata lost seisin over matter. He became functus officio . [Emphasis given by us]Thus, contention of Ld. CIT, DR that jurisdiction is administrative issue and not subject matter stands negated in light of jurisdictional High Court's specific observations (supra). 21. Coming to next contention of Ld. CIT, DR that since assessee did not question territorial jurisdiction of AO at Delhi after it received statutory notice from him and therefore assessee is estopped/shut-out from doing so as stipulated by sub-section (3) of sec. 124 of Act. We however note that sub-section (3) of section 124 of Act will come into play only when question arises as to whether AO has jurisdiction to assess any person u/s. 124 of Act and AO derives his powers from direction or order issued by CBDT and/or authorities under sub-section (1) or (2) of sec. 120 of Act respectively. It is true that when question of jurisdiction arises in event AO assumes jurisdiction u/s. 124 of Act by virtue of jurisdiction vested by direction or order issued by CBDT and/or other authorities under sub-section (1) or (2) of sec. 120 of Act respectively, then assessee is estopped from raising objection to jurisdiction, after time period prescribed under sub-section (3) of sec. 124 of Act lapses. This however is not fact of appellant s case. Admittedly AO at Delhi who had enjoyed 22 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 jurisdiction u/s. 124 of Act by virtue of direction or order issued by CBDT and/or authorities under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 120 of Act was legally divested of his jurisdiction over appellant s case by virtue of order u/s. 127 of Act dated 08.10.2008, and thereafter AO at Delhi could not have suo moto assumed jurisdiction u/s. 124 of Act. In our opinion therefore in appellant s case, provision of section 124(3) does not come into play since case of assessee was legally transferred by competent authority u/s. 127 of Act as far back as in 2008. There is reason for saying so when transfer of assessee's case as envisaged u/s. 127 occurs, competent authority gives reasonable opportunity of being heard [except if AO to whom case is transferred are situated in same city, locality or place (see sub-section (3) of section 127 of Act)] and at this juncture, we would like to remind that in present case at hand, assessee was given opportunity to be heard by Commissioner at Delhi before he proposed transfer of assessee's case to AO at Ranchi and assessee had objected to transfer which is found available in paper book. After considering assessee's objections, Commissioner at Delhi transferred case of assessee from AO at Delhi to AO at Ranchi. In circumstances therefore, as discussed above, once transfer of case of assessee is ordered u/s. 127 of Act, AO who was vested with jurisdiction by virtue of direction or order issued under sub- section (1) or (2) of sec. 120 and section 124 of Act stood divested of same. As held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in M/s. Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (infra),since jurisdiction was divested of earlier AO by virtue of transfer order u/s. 127 of Act, earlier AO, which in this case is AO at Delhi (DCIT. Circle -15, New Delhi) ceased to be Assessing Officer after date of transfer i.e. 08.10.2008 and therefore he (i.e. AO at New Delhi) ought not to have issued statutory notices upon assessee unless he had been re-empowered or vested by fresh transfer order u/s. 127 of Act (i.e. from AO, Ranchi to AO, Delhi), which is not case of Revenue. In circumstances therefore, AO at Delhi (ACIT, Circle-21 (1), New Delhi) could not have usurped jurisdiction when his predecessor i.e. DCIT, Circle-15(1), New Delhi was divested of it, by order dated 23 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 08.10.2008 by CIT-V, New Delhi u/s. 127 of Act. Subsequent to order u/s. 127 of Act i.e., w.e.f. from 08.10.2008, DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi succeeded to jurisdiction of assessee and jurisdiction continued to vest in him (AO Ranchi) till it was legally taken away by order u/s. 127 dated 03.11.2017 by Pr. CIT, Central Patna and transferred to ACIT, Central Circle-3(l), Kolkata. Therefore, as per discussions (supra) there was no necessity for assessee to have questioned jurisdiction of AO at Delhi, as envisaged under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 124 of Act since in first place AO at Delhi legally enjoyed jurisdiction u/s. 124 of Act over assessee s case. In our considered opinion Section 124(3) of Act does not in any way help Department to justify action of AO at New Delhi in issuing under Section 143(2) to assessee, which is action without jurisdiction. So challenge raised by Ld CIT, DR fails. Therefore, we do not find any merit in contention of Ld. CIT, DR on this score. 22. During course of hearing before us, Ld. CIT, DR took pains to convince us that there are overlapping/concurrent jurisdiction in respect to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of AO and, therefore, AO having territorial jurisdiction over assessee s principal office at Rajendra Place, New Delhi having issued notice u/s. 143(2) of Act was empowered to do so since ACIT, Circle-21(1), Delhi enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction conferred u/s. 120/124 of Act and, therefore on subsequent transfer of case by Pr. CIT, Central Patna by order dated 24.10.2017 to ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata, there was no need to re-issue notice u/s. 143(2) of Act in terms of Sec. 127(4) of Act. For this he relied on various judicial decisions. We however note that case laws relied on by Ld. CIT, DR were factually distinguishable. In these decisions Courts were called upon to examine implications arising from provisions of Section 120 and 124 of Act and facts of these cases did not involve orders under Section 127 of Act in terms of which AO holding territorial jurisdiction in terms of Section 124 read with Section 120(1) & (2) was specifically divested of his jurisdiction by competent authority and jurisdiction was conferred on some other officer after complying with procedure prescribed in Section 127 of 24 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 Act. Instead we find that similar issue came up before this Tribunal in case of M/s. Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT wherein factual matrix governing issue of jurisdiction was similar. In that case question was whether Commissioner who usurped revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of Act could have validly done so, once he himself had passedan order u/s 127 of Act in terms of which assessee s case stood transferred. facts of said case M/s. Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT can be summarized as follows:- Sl. Date Events No. Assessment u/s. 147/143(3) by ITO, Wd- 1. 21st May, 2010 4(1), Kolkata (for AY 2008-09). CIT, Kolkata-II transferred jurisdiction over assessee to ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-XIX, Kolkata for better co- 2. 3rd September, 2012 ordination, effective investigation and meaningful assessment, consequent to search conducted on 17th November 2011 upon M/s. Atha Mines (AY 2012-13). ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-XIX, Kolkata 3. 18th March, 2013 issued sec. 143(2) notice to assessee Actual transfer of files took place from th 4. 29 July, 2013 ITO, Wd-4(1), Kolkata to ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-XIX, Kolkata. Notice u/s. 263 issued by CIT, Kolkata-II proposing to interfere in assessment 5. 18th March, 2013 order passed by ITO, Wd-4(1), Kolkata dated 21st May, 2010 (AY 2008-09). CIT-II, Kolkata passed order u/s. 263 th 6. 26 March, 2013 setting aside order of ITO, Wad-4(1) dated 21st May, 2010 for AY 2008-09. 23. aforesaid order of CIT-II, Kolkata was challenged by assessee [M/s Ramshila,]objecting to jurisdiction of CIT-II, Kolkata who had issued Show Cause Notice u/s. 263 and thereafter passed order u/s. 263 dated 26th March, 2013 for AY 2008- 09. validity of said revision order was upheld by this Tribunal in favour of department, by observing as under: definition of case for purpose of sec.127 of Act as given in Explanation below sec.127 does not debar Commissioner from transferring only particular case, more so when request for transfer was made in specific circumstances, such as proper co- 25 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 ordination of search cases.The Commissioner transferring jurisdiction has power to transfer all proceedings under Act, which are pending, completed or which may be commenced after date of transfer, but that does not mean that he does not have powers to restrict his order of transfer only to particular case for which request was made, thereby, leaving jurisdiction in respect of other cases pertaining to assessee to be exercised by AO/CIT who already had it.The power to do particular act also includes power to restrict exercise of power partly.It cannot be said that power should be exercised either as whole or not at all.Such argument is fallacious and defeats very purpose of conferring larger power.As actual transfer of files from incumbent AO to new AO had taken place only on 29.7.2013 and further order sought to be revised by ld.CIT u/s 263 was passed much prior to even making of request for transfer of jurisdiction in respect of search matters, we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that only CIT Kolkata II, Kolkata had jurisdiction to revise assessment order passed u/s147 as has been done in this case.The contention of learned AR in this regard is held to be without substance and not unacceptable. 24. Aggrieved by aforesaid order of Tribunal, assessee M/s.Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. preferred appeal before Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, Calcutta wherein following question of law raising jurisdictional issue similar to that raised by assessee before us, was framed as under:- Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II, had jurisdiction over appellant at time of issue of Show Cause notice on 18th March, 2013 and passing of order on 26th March, 2013 under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of transfer of jurisdiction to Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolkata vide order dated 3rd September, 2012 under section 127 (2)(a) of said Act and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?. 25. In this case which is reported as M/s.Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 546 (Cal), we note that gist of department s contention was taken note by Hon ble High Court, which is as under: Mr. Ghosal, learned senior advocate appearing for Revenue submitted that transfer order itself indicates that jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer, Wd-4(1), Kolkata was transferred to ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-XIX, Kolkata, which is at page 584. jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax remained unchanged. In other words, it is jurisdiction of trial court, which was changed. jurisdiction of appellate authority remained unchanged. Therefore, order under challenge was validly passed by Commissioner of Income-tax. 26. Per contra; in that case, assessee contended that as per Explanation appended to section 127 of Act that expression transfer of case would mean all pending 26 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 and future proceedings and in that case it was pointed out that Tribunal also agreed that only CIT, Central, Kolkata had jurisdiction over pending cases as well as future cases.The Ld. AR of assessee pleaded before Hon ble High Court as under: Mr.Poddar, learned senior advocate, drew our attention to order dated 3rd September, 2012 appearing at page 584 of additional papers filed by him, which is order passed under section 127 of Income Tax Act by no other than CIT, Kolkata-II, Kolkata, who passed impugned order under Section 263, transferring jurisdiction over five assessees including appellant before us to ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle XIX, Kolkata in interest of revenue for better coordination, effective investigation and meaningful assessment consequent to search conducted on 17th November, 2011 against business concern of Atha Mines. Mr.Poddar contended that appellant before us is not in any way connected with Atha Mines Group. But point of substance is that impugned order under section 263 was passed by CIT, Kolkata-II, Kolkata in spite of fact that jurisdiction had already been transferred by his predecessor-in-office by his order dated 3rd September, 2012 with immediate effect. Mr.Podder contended that CIT, Kolkata-II, Kolkata thereafter had no longer any jurisdiction left with him to be exercised in respect of return or returns filed by assessee or assessments made. He submitted that exercise of power was not only ex parte, without notice, but was also without jurisdiction. He drew our attention to letter dated 18th March, 2013 received by his client from Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, which is notice under section 143(2) pertaining to assessment year 2012-2013. He submitted that order dated 3rd September, 2012 transferring jurisdiction to ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-XIX, Kolkata had already become operative and was also acted upon.Therefore, CIT, Kolkata-II, Kolkata could not have exercised jurisdiction.The impugned order passed by him is altogether without jurisdiction and is, therefore, nullity. He drew our attention to judgment of Apex Court in case of Pandurang and Others versus State of Maharashtra reported in (1986) 4 SCC436for proposition that even right order by wrong forum is nullity.In aforesaid judgment their Lordship held as follows: 4.When matter required to be decided by Division Bench of High Court is decided by learned Single Judge, judgment would be nullity, matter having been heard by court which had no competence to hear matter, it being matter of total lack of jurisdiction.The accused was entitled to be heard by at least two learned Judges constituting Division Bench and had right to claim verdict as regards his guilt or innocence at hands of two learned Judges.This right cannot be taken away except by amending rules.So long as rules are in operation it would be arbitrary and discriminatory to deny him this right regardless of whether it is done by reason of negligence or otherwise.Deliberately, it cannot be done.Negligence can neither be invoked as alibi, nor can cure infirmity or illegality, so as to rob accused of his right under rules.What can be done only by at least two learned Judges cannot be done by one learned Judge.Even if decision is right on merits, it is by forum which is lacking in competence with regard to subject matter.Even right decision by wrong forum is no decision.It is non-existent in eye of law.And hence nullity.The judgment under appeal is therefore no judgment in eye of law.This Court in State of Madhya Pradsh v. Dewadas (1982) 1 SCC 552 has taken view which reinforces our view.We, therefore, allow appeal, set aside order passed by learned Single Judge, and send matter back to High Court for being placed before Division Bench of High Court, which will afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides and dispose it of in accordance with law, expeditiously. 27 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 He also relied upon Division Bench judgement of this Court in case of ITO Vs/. Ashoke Glass Works reported in (1980) 125 ITR491(Cal) wherein following view was expressed (page 505): So when jurisdiction is validly removed by competent authority under provisions of statute, original court or any Tribunal or authority in such event will be incompetent, as having ceased to have jurisdiction, to proceed further with pending proceeding or proceeding which may be instituted after such removal of jurisdiction. 27. After hearing both parties Hon ble High Court has held as under: We have considered rival submissions. It is not necessary for us to consider whether Commissioner had jurisdiction to restrict order of transfer, for simple reason that order of transfer in this case was not restricted one. Reading order dated 3rd September, 2012 as whole, it does not appear that any restricted transfer was sought to be made for any particular year or years or otherwise. order of transfer, as we have already indicated, was passed in interest of revenue for better coordination, effective investigative and meaningful assessment. actual transfer of files may have taken place on 29th July, 2013 but admitted position is that notice under Section 143(2) by transferee assessing officer was issued on 18th March, 2013. existence of files does not confer jurisdiction when same has validly been transferred and also acted upon. jurisdiction over subject-matter has to be conferred by law. jurisdiction in this case had been transferred by order dated 3rd September, 2012 by no other than CIT Kolkata- II, Kolkata himself. Once that was done CIT Kolkata II, Kolkata lost seisin over matter. He became functus officio . Reference in this regard may be made to Stroud s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, 7th Edition, Page 1085 wherein following meaning has been expressed: FUNCTUS OFFICIO. arbitrator or referee cannot be said to be functus officio when he has given decision which is held to be no decision at all (Davies v Howe Spinning Co LTD.27 B.W.C.C.207). Where judge has made order for stay of execution which has been passed and entered, he is functus officio, and neither he nor any other judge of equal jurisdiction has jurisdiction to vary terms of such stay (Re V.G.M.Holding Ltd [1941].3 All E.R.417). arbitrator or umpire who has made his award is functus officio, and could not by common law alter it in any way whatsoever; he could not even correct obvious clerical mistake. See Mordue v Palmer, 6 Ch. App.22; Henfree v Bromley, 6 East, 309; Brooke v Mitchell, 6 M.& W.473. See now Arbitration Act 1950 (c.27).s.17. Reference may also be made to judgement in case of Re V.G.M.Holdings, Ltd. 1941 (3) All England Law Reports, 417 wherein following views were expressed: I think that it would be strange position if judge were at liberty to reconsider his decision and grant stay of execution after he had made order refusing it. I think that, when judge has made order such as that in present case, only remedy for respondent, if he is dissatisfied with order, is to go to Court of Appeal special bench in case of Komal Chand versus State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1966 Madhya Pradesh 20 opined in this regard as follows: Section 35 of Stamp Act, inter alia, says that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be registered by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped. This provision thus 28 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 casts duty on registering officer to examine whether instrument presented for registration is duly stamped. If, as section 36 says, instrument chargeable with duty shall not be registered unless such instrument is duly stamped, then it follows that registering officer must perform duty of seeing whether instrument presented for registration is or is not duly stamped before admitting it to registration and not afterwards. If he finds that document is not duly stamped, then he must impound it under Section 33 of Act. Neither in Registration Act nor in Stamp Act is there any provision giving to registering officer any power to examine whether instrument already registered was or was not duly stamped and to impound it. As soon as registering officer registers document presented to him for registration, function in performance of which document was produced before him is over and thereafter becomes functus officio having no power under section 33 to impound instrument. matter is really concluded by decision of Supreme Court in Govt. of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR1961SC787 That was case where question arose whether Collector has any power to impound instrument sent to him for adjudication under section 31 of Stamp Act. Supreme Court held that under that section Collector had no such power, as provision gave him power only to give his opinion as regards duty with which in his judgment instrument was chargeable and when that function was performed by Collector he became functus officio. It was observed by Supreme Court that power to impound only exists when instrument is produced before judicial officers or other officers performing judicial functions as evidence of any fact to be proved, or before other public officers who have to perform any function in regard to those instruments as, for example, registration. Supreme Court also approved decisions in Collector, Ahmednagar v. Rambhau, AIR 1930 Bom 392 (FB). Paiku v. Gaya, ILR (1948) Nag 950 : (AIR1949Nag 214) and Panakala Rao v. Kumaraswami, AIR 1937Mad 763 where doctrine of functus officio was applied and it was held that Court had no power to recall and impound certificate of sale after executing it and delivering it to purchaser, or to reopen case and impound documents proved after signing decree, or to impound instrument admitted in evidence after delivery of judgment.Here, when Sub- In present case, Sub-Registrar purported to act under paragraph 232 of Registration Manual when he made report to Collector that Takseemnama was not duly stamped.But on reading paragraphs 231 and 232 it is clear that they do not say that after document is admitted to registration, registering officer can make report to Collector that it was not sufficiently stamped on other hand, paragraph 231 expressly lays down direction that before taking any further action, that is to say, in matter of registration, registering officer must see that document is duly stamped.The words after registering document occurring in paragraph 232 obviously refer to entry of document in Register maintained of documents presented for registration.They do not mean that registering officer can make report about insufficiency of stamp after document has been admitted to registration. In case of SBI versus S.N.Goyal reported in 2009 (8) SCC92the following views were expressed: It is true that once authority exercising quasi-judicial power takes final decision, it cannot review its decision unless relevant statute or rules permit such review.But question is as to at what stage authority becomes functus officio in regard to order made by him.P.Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law LexiCo.(3rd Edn., Vol.2, pp.1946-47) gives following illustrative definition of term functus officio : 29 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 Thus judge, when he has decided question brought before him, is functus officio, and cannot review his own decision. Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn., p.673) gives its meaning as follows: Having fulfilled function, discharged office, or accomplished purpose, and therefore of no further force or authority. We may first refer to position with reference to civil courts.Order 20 of Code of Civil Procedure deals with judgment and decree.Rule 1 explains when judgment is pronounced.Sub-rule (1) provides that court, after case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open court either at once, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, and when judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, court shall fix day for that purpose of which due notice shall be given to parties or their pleaders.Sub- rule (3) provides that judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open court to shorthand writer [if Judge is specially empowered (sic by High Court) in this behalf].The proviso thereto provides that where judgment is pronounced by dictation in open court, transcript of judgment so pronounced shall, after making such corrections as may be necessary, be signed by Judge, bear date on which it was pronounced and form part of record.Rule 3 provides that judgment shall be dated and signed by Judge in open court at time of pronouncing it and when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to save as provided by Section 152 or on review.Thus, where judgment is reserved, mere dictation does not amount to pronouncement, but where judgment is dictated in open court, that itself amounts to pronouncement.But even after such pronouncement by open court dictation, Judge can make corrections before signing and dating judgment.Therefore, Judge becomes functus officio when he pronounces, signs and dates judgment (subject to Section 152 and power of review).The position is different with reference to quasi-judicial authorities.While some quasi-judicial tribunals fix day for pronouncement and pronounce their orders on day fixed, many quasi-judicial authorities do not pronounce their orders.Some publish or notify their orders.Some prepare and sign orders and communicate same to party concerned.A quasi-judicial authority will become functus officio only when its order is pronounced, or published/notified or communicated (put in course of transmission) to party concerned.When order is made in office noting in file but is not pronounced, published or communicated, nothing prevents authority from correcting it or altering it for valid reasons.But once order is pronounced or published or notified or communicated, authority will become functus officio.The order dated 18-1-1995 made on office note, was neither pronounced, nor published/notified nor communicated.Therefore, it cannot be said that appointing authority became functus officio when it signed note dated 18-1-1995. Applying law laid down in S.N.Goyal s (supra) case we are reinforced, in our opinion that CIT Kolkata II, Kolkata had become functus officio prior to 18th March, 2013 because transferee assessing officer had assumed jurisdiction without which notice dated 18th March, 2013 under Section 143(2) could not have been issued.Therefore, order of transfer was duly published/ notified and/or communicated and thereafter acted upon by transferee-assessing officer. We are, as such of opinion that issuance of notice dated 18th March, 2013 under Section 263 and consequent order dated 26th March, 2013 passed under Section 263 of Income Tax Act were acts without jurisdiction and therefore nullity. For aforesaid reasons question No.(a) is answered in negative. point is, thus decided in favour of assessee.The appeal stands allowed. (Emphasis given by us) 30 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 28. From aforesaid order of Hon ble High Court at Calcutta, we understand that in this case after order u/s. 127 of Act dated 03.09.2012 was passed by CIT-2, Kolkata, he became functus officio and therefore Hon ble High Court held that he could not have exercised jurisdiction over assessee s case u/s. 263 of Act and consequently therefore he erred in passing order dated 26.03 2013 u/s 263 setting aside order of ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata dated 21.05.2010. 29. Coming back to case in hand, and having taken note of ratio laid down by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court (supra), we note that in present case, after order of CIT-V, New Delhi dated 08.10.2008 transferring jurisdiction of assessee s case to DCIT, Central Circle, Ranchi, CIT, Delhi became functus officio and thereby his subordinate officers viz., ACIT, Circle 21(1), New Delhi, could not have issued notice u/s. 143(2) dated 28.07.2016 and in that view of matter notice issued by ACIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi u/s 143(2)was without jurisdiction and, therefore, non-est in eyes of law. 30. Our above finding also finds support from decision of this Tribunal in case of Chankya Finvest Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (34 taxmann.com 206). In that case CIT Delhi had passed order u/s 127 dated 04.01.2010 transferring jurisdiction over assessee s case from ITO, Delhi to ITO Kolkata. After order u/s 127 was passed on 04.01.2010, ITO at Delhi initiated reassessment proceedings after recording reasons and issued notice u/s 148 dated 25.03.2010 for AY 2003-04. Thereafter, without their being fresh order u/s 124/ 127; ITO, Delhi transferred case records pertaining to reassessment for AY 2003-04 to charge of ITO, Kolkata. Taking recourse to provisions of Section 124(5), ITO Kolkata continued with reassessment proceedings from stage at which case records were transferred from Delhi and thereafter passed order u/s 147/143(3).Before this Tribunal, assessee challenged validity of proceedings and consequent order u/s 143(3)/147 on ground that notice u/s 148 was issued by officer who did not hold valid jurisdiction over assessee s case. Tribunal upholding assessee s objection, observed as under: 31 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 3. Briefly stated facts are that assessee filed its return of income at Delhi in office of ITO, Ward-3(3) Delhi on 02-12-2003. Subsequently, notice u/s. 148 of Act was issued on 25-03-2010 with permission of Addl. CIT, Range-3, New Delhi. But, in meantime, CIT-1, Delhi passed order u/s. 127(2) transferring jurisdiction of this case vide its order No.CIT-1/Cent/09-10/1874 dated 04-01-2010 from ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi to ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata. assessee claimed before AO as well as before CIT(A) that ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi did not have jurisdiction to issue notice u/s. 148 of Act on 25-03-2010 as case was transferred u/s. 127(2) of Act from New Delhi to Kolkata on 04-01-2010. assessee before CIT(A) filed written submissions as under: "This appeal is against reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of I. T. Act 1961. assessee has challenged reopening by ITO Ward 3(3) Delhi. notice u/s. 148 of I.T. Act 1961 was issued by ITO Delhi after receipt of approval from Additional CIT Delhi on 25-03-2010. However CIT Delhi had passed order u/s. 127 transferring file to Kolkata on 4-1-2010 as such on 25-3-2010 AO in Delhi did not have jurisdiction over case, hence reopening it without jurisdiction as it is based on notice u/s. 148 of I. T. Act, 1961 issued by ITO Delhi. We have requested AO at Kolkata to issue copy of order of 127 and 151 of I.T. Act, 1961 but same has not been issued yet. We therefore request you to either, call for records and adjudicate validity of reopening or grant adjournment of 15 days to obtain certified copies of all related records so that we can represent matter properly." CIT(A) sent this written submission to ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vide letter No. CIT(A)- VI/Kol/Remand/2011-12/368 dated 20-02-2010 and AO sent its remand report vide letter No. Wd- 6(1)/Kol/ChanakyaFinvest/11-12/826 dated 23-04-2010, which is as under: "Kindly refer to your letter No. CIT(A)-VI/Kol/Remand Report/2011-12/368 dated 20.02.2012. In this connection following information as available from record are chronologically appended below: Date Happening 1. 04-01-10 Order u/s l27 passed by Ld. CIT, Delhi-I, New Delhi. 2. 23-03-10 Proposal to re-open case was sent to Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-3 Delhi. 3. 25-03-10 Delhi. Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-3, accorded approval for re-open case. 4. 25-03-10 Notice u/s 148 issued and served by ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi. 5. 30-11-10 Record received by under signed from ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi. 6. 03-12-10 assessee complied to notice u/s 148 vide petition dated 03.12.10. 7. 03-12-10 Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) both were issued and served. 8. 29-12-10 Assessment completed u/s 147/144 as there were non-compliance 32 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 Though order u/s 127 was passed by Ld. CIT, Delhi-I, on 04-01-10, but till time records are not transferred to transferee AO, jurisdiction lies with Assessing Officer holding charge over case and all action as per law is required to be initiated or taken by that jurisdictional AO only. Hence jurisdictional AO at Delhi has rightly re-opened case on approval from higher authority and issued notice u/s 148. On receiving records on 30-11-10 undersigned disposed off case u/s. 147/144 as per law after offering reasonable opportunities of being heard to assessee." During appellate proceedings on 16-02-2010, CIT(A) recorded following order sheet entry: "Mr. Miraj D. Shah, Advocate attended proceedings & filed written submission of one paper along with copy of reasons recorded, order sheet of 147 proceedings given. appellant has submitted that file was transferred to Kolkata on 4-1-10 by order u/s 127. Copies of order u/s 127 and section 151 approved by Addl. CIT to be submitted tomorrow. issue of jurisdiction of Delhi A.O. was not taken before A.O. who completed assessment. Adj. to 20-2-12." 4.CIT(A) discussed issue and observed in paras 8 and 9 as under: "8. appellant submitted during appellate proceedings that he does not submit any additional evidences, books of account or other documents either before appellate authority or Assessing Officer since these are not available with appellant. appellant has never taken objection regarding jurisdiction of issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer of New Delhi or initiation/continuation of assessment proceedings by Income-tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Kolkata before Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings even when authorised representative attended proceedings on 08-12-2010 and 16-12-2010. authorised representative asked for extension of time from Assessing Officer on 20-12-2010 but did not file any objection regarding jurisdiction of Assessing Officer and did not attend proceedings thereafter. assessment has been completed on 29-12-2010. 9. Income-tax Officer, Ward (1) has submitted that case records were not transferred to him and was still lying with ITO Ward 3(3), New Delhi on date of issuance of notice u/s 148. In absence of transfer of case records, jurisdiction is not transferred automatically since ITO Ward 6(1), Kolkata did not know about order passed u/s 127 by Commissioner of Income-tax- 1, New Delhi." And further, he decided issue by dismissing assessee's issue of reopening u/s. 148 of Act, vide ground Nos. 17 to 20 as under: "17. assessee had never questioned jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceedings. Section 124(3) of Income-tax Act makes it clear that jurisdiction of Assessing Officer cannot be challenged after expiry of one month from date of service of notice on assessee under section 143(2)/148. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Hindustan Transport Co. v. IAC [1991] 189 ITR 326 (All.)has held that when there is time-limit prescribed in Act to which plea of jurisdiction may be raised, it cannot be challenged before appellate authorities. This judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at [1991] 188 ITR (St.) 84. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 457 (Cal.) has held that assessee who had not raised objection at time of hearing of case by Assessing Officer or within 33 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 period of one month as is prescribed under section 124, same could not be challenged subsequently. 18. order u/s 127 was passed by Ld. CIT, Delhi-l, on 04-01-10, but before time records were not transferred to transferee Assessing Officer, jurisdiction lies with Assessing Officer holding charge over case and all action as per law is required to be initiated or taken by that jurisdictional Assessing Officer only as per submissions of current Assessing Officer i.e. Income-tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Kolkata and he further submitted that jurisdictional Assessing Officer at Delhi has rightly re-opened case after due approval from his jurisdictional Joint commissioner of Income-tax and issued notice u/s 148 before actually transferring case. 19. appellant never raised question of jurisdiction before Assessing Officer either at New Delhi when notice u/s 148 was issued or at time of assessment with Assessing officer at Kolkata. There was possibility to Assessing Officer at New Delhi to get records transferred immediately to Kolkata and fresh notice may have been issued during time-limitation by Assessing Officer at Kolkata. 20. Following law laid down and upheld by Hon'ble appellate authorities as discussed above, legal provisions of section 124(3) on this issue and in facts and circumstances of case, it is held that assessment order passed u/s 147/144 of I.T. Act 1961 is not without jurisdiction and is as per law and hence assessment order passed by Assessing Officer is held to be valid order. In facts and circumstances of case proceedings u/s 148 of I T Act 1961 is upheld to be valid in absence of any objection being raised before Assessing Officer issuing notice u/s 148 and/or completing assessment. In facts and circumstances of case it is also held that appellant was given proper opportunity after serving notice u/s 148 and during assessment by Assessing Officer. Hence, these three grounds of appeal are dismissed." Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of case. First of all, it is to be seen that what is chronology of events, as recorded by AO in his remand report given, during course of appellate proceedings before CIT(A). chronology of events is as under: Date Happening 1. 04-01-10 Order u/s l27 passed by Ld. CIT, Delhi-I, New Delhi. 2. 23-03-10 Proposal to re-open case was sent to Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-3, Delhi. 3. 25-03-10 Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-3, accorded approval for re-open case. 4. 25-03-10 Notice u/s 148 issued and served by ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi. 5. 30-11-10 Record received by under signed from ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi. 6. 03-12-10 assessee complied to notice u/s 148 vide petition dated 03-12-10. 7. 03-12-10 Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) both were issued and served. 8. 29-12-10 Assessment completed u/s 147/144 as there were non-compliance 6. We find that AO in his remand proceedings noted that although order u/s. 127 of Act was passed by CIT, Del-1 on 04-01-2010, reasons were recorded for reopening on 23-03-2010 for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of Act on 25-03-2010 because till time records are not transferred to transferee AO, according to him, jurisdiction lies with AO holding charge over case and all action as per law are required to be initiated or taken by that jurisdiction AO only. Even CIT(A) noted that assessee has never objected regarding jurisdiction of issuance of notice u/s. 148 of Act by AO of New Delhi or initiation/continuation of assessment proceedings by ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata before AO during assessment proceedings. Whether such plea can be accepted or not? Before us, Ld. Sr. DR heavily relied on decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of SubhashChander v. CIT [2008] 166 Taxman 34 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 307 wherein non-objection as per section 124(2) read with section 124(4) of Act, jurisdiction assumed by AO was held to be valid. Further, there was reliance by Sr. DR on case law of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT v. British India Corpn. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 64 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 446, wherein assumption of jurisdiction, by AO for assessment, u/s. 124 of Act that when ITO had jurisdiction when assessment proceedings commenced and draft assessment order was submitted to IAC but due to subsequent change in jurisdiction, unless same brought to notice of authority concerned, assessment would not be vitiated. We are with argument of Ld. Sr. DR in respect to this argument that where jurisdiction assumed by AO, assessee has to object to same u/s. 124 of Act in case hr us aggrieved. But, what will be effect of order of Commissioner of Income-tax transferring jurisdiction u/s. 127 of Act. We are of view, that when any case of particular assessee which is transferred from one AO to another AO, whether within state or without it, all proceedings which are pending against assessee under Act in respect of same year as also previous years are meant to be transferred simultaneously and all proceedings under Act which may be commenced after date of such transfer in respect of any year whatever are also included therein, so that AO to whom such case is transferred would be in position to continue pending proceedings and also institute further proceedings against assessee in respect of any year. proceedings pending at date of transfer can be thus continued but in case of such proceedings provisions in regard to issuance of notices contained in main body of section 127(2) of Act would apply and it would not be necessary to reissue any notice already issued by AO from whom case is transferred. For this, assessee has relied on decision of Hon'ble P&H High Court in case of Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh v. CIT [1996] 89 Taxman 536. 7. After going through provisions of sections 120, 124 and 127 of Act, plenary powers regarding conferment of jurisdiction has been vested, by delegation by statute, on Commissioner having jurisdiction in respect of assessment of case. This power, in absence of any prohibition or restriction, empowers Commissioner of Income-tax to effect realignment of jurisdiction. Commissioner of Income-tax by order or direction, while divesting these authorities of power in respect of performance of their duties under Act conferred earlier, may confer such jurisdiction to other authorities under Act, as he may direct. As soon as such order or direction is made completely divesting jurisdiction of authorities so long so empowered, all proceedings including those which might arise thereafter, before them as also proceedings pending before them, come within jurisdiction of newly conferred authorities unless any specific provision is made in respect of any pending proceedings. Such consequence is inevitable when there is withdrawal of jurisdiction, which means automatic extinction of jurisdiction of one authority with simultaneous conferment of jurisdiction on another authority under Act in respect of all pending and future proceedings. Explanation to section 127 of Act makes it clear that word "case" in relation to any person whose name is specified in order of transfer means all proceedings under Act in respect of any year which may be pending on date of transfer, and also includes all proceedings under Act which may be commenced after date of transfer in respect of any year. word "case" is thus used in comprehensive sense of including both pending proceedings and proceedings to be instituted in future. Consequently, order of transfer can be validly made even if there be no proceedings pending for assessment of tax and purpose of transfer may simply be that all future proceedings are to take place before officer to whom case of assessee is transferred. 8. In view of above principle regarding jurisdiction and facts of present case, order passed by CIT-1, Delhi, transferring jurisdiction from ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi on 04-01-2010, subsequent action of AO i.e. ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi issuing notice u/s. 148 of Act dated 25-03-2010 is invalid because jurisdiction from ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi by CIT-1, Delhi to ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata. At time of passing of order by CIT-1, Delhi transferring jurisdiction from ITO, Ward- 3(3), New Delhi dated 04-01-2010 to ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata, there is no proceedings pending before ITO, Delhi and transfer order for jurisdiction was passed on that date. CIT, Delhi-1 35 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 passed order u/s. 127 of Act on 01-01-2010 transferring jurisdiction of assessee to ITO, Wd-6(1), Kolkata and jurisdiction in respect to every action for all assessment years lies with ITO, Wd-6(1), Kolkata and only he is competent to issue notice u/s. 148 of Act. In such circumstances, notice issued u/s. 148 of Act by ITO, Ward-3(3), New Delhi is bad and illegal in view of clear provisions of Act because order for transfer of case was validly made by CIT and purpose for transfer was simply that all future proceedings are to be taken by ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata w.e.f. 04-01-2010. Hence, notice issued u/s. 148 of Act dated 25.03.2010 is quashed. 9. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. 31. We further find that decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of Fiat India Automobiles Ltd Vs Vijender Singh (211 Taxman 570) support legal ground canvassed by appellant before us. relevant facts and findings of said case were as follows: 3. basic argument of Petitioner is that once CIT-10 Mumbai in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 127(2) of Act has transferred power to assess Petitioner on 22.11.2011 from ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to DCIT, Circle-1(2) Pune, then ACIT-10(1) would have no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice dated 30.03.2012 and therefore, said notice dated 30.03.2012 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. relevant facts are that on shifting registered office of Petitioner from Mumbai to Pune, Petitioner in June-July, 2009 had applied for transfer of assessment records from Mumbai to Pune. After, exchange of several letters, CIT-10 Mumbai by his order dated 22.11.2011 transferred powers to assess petitioner from ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to DCIT, Circle-1(2) Pune. Thus, from 22.11.2011 ACIT-10(1) Mumbai did not have any power to assess or reassess petitioner. 5. It is not in dispute that on transfer of jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, Additional CIT, (TP) Pune has assumed jurisdiction and accordingly issued notice dated 29.03.2012 to Petitioner under Section 92CA of Act relating to Assessment year 2009-2010. 6. However, ACIT-10(1) Mumbai has issued impugned notice on 30.03.2012 under Section 14 8 of Act with view to reopen assessment for A.Y. 2005-06. assessee by its letter dated 24.04.2012 objected to impugned notice by specifically stating that pursuant to order of CIT dated 22.11.2011, ACIT-10(1) would have no locus standi or jurisdiction to issue impugned notice dated 30.03.2012. As there was no reply, present writ petition is filed inter alia on ground that once jurisdiction to assess/reassess petitioner vested in ACIT-10(1) is divested by order of CIT-10 Mumbai dated 22.11.2011, ACIT-10(1) Mumbai would cease to have power to assess or reassess petitioner and hence, impugned notice issued by ACIT-10(1) Mumbai being without jurisdiction is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. In affidavit-in-reply filed by DCIT-10(1) Mumbai dated 8.10.2012 it is stated that by corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012, CIT-10 Mumbai has temporarily withdrawn/cancelled earlier transfer order dated 22.11.2011 for sake of administrative convenience and therefore, notice dated 30.03.2012 would be valid. It is case of petitioner that neither any notice to pass corrigendum order was issued to petitioner nor alleged corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 has been served upon petitioner till date. 36 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 8. Mr. Pinto, learned Counsel for Revenue on instruction from CIT-10 Mumbai informs us that there is no proof of serving corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 upon petitioner. It is neither case of revenue that before passing corrigendum any notice was issued to petitioner nor it is case of revenue that corrigendum order was passed after hearing petitioner. 9. Although in affidavit in reply revenue claims to have annexed copy of corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 no such order was in fact annexed to affidavit-in-reply. It is only during course of hearing Counsel for revenue admitted lapse and tendered copy of letter dated 20.03.2012 addressed by ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to CIT-10 Mumbai as well as corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 to Court as also to Counsel for Petitioner. .. 11. corrigendum order dated 27/3/2012 passed by CIT-10 Mumbai reads thus:- 12. question therefore to be considered is, when CIT-10 Mumbai has transferred jurisdiction to assess/reassess petitioner from ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to DCIT Circle-1(2) Pune under Section 127 of Act after hearing petitioner on 22.11.2011, whether CIT-10 Mumbai at instance of ACIT-10(1) Mumbai is justified in issuing corrigendum order on 27.03.2012 behind back of petitioner & whether ACIT-10(1) Mumbai is justified in issuing impugned notice under Section 148 of Act dated 30.03.2012 on basis of said corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 which is passed without issuing notice to petitioner, without hearing petitioner and which is uncommunicated to petitioner. 13. Mr. Pinto, learned Counsel for Revenue does not dispute that corrigendum order was passed without issuing notice and without hearing petitioner and further admits that said corrigendum order was not served upon petitioner till date and that he has tendered copy of said corrigendum order upon counsel for petitioner today in Court. However, he submits that once corrigendum order was passed by CIT-10 Mumbai on 27.03.2012 ACIT-10(1) Mumbai was justified in issuing impugned notice dated 30.03.2012. 14. In our opinion, conduct of ACIT-10(1) Mumbai as well as CIT-10 Mumbai is highly deplorable. Once jurisdiction to assess petitioner was transferred by CIT-10 Mumbai from ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to DCIT Circle-1(2) Pune by order dated 22.11.2011 it was totally improper on part of ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to request CIT-10, Mumbai to pass corrigendum order with view to circumvent jurisdictional issue. Making such request on part of ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to CIT-10 Mumbai in our opinion, was in gross abuse of process of law. If there was any time barring issue, ACIT-10(1) Mumbai ought to have asked his counterpart at Pune to whom jurisdiction was transferred to take appropriate steps in matter instead of taking steps to circumvent jurisdictional issue. It does not befit ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to indulge in circumventing provisions of law and we strongly condemn conduct of ACIT-10(1) Mumbai in that behalf. Instead of bringing to book persons who circumvent provisions of law, ACIT-10(1) Mumbai has himself indulged in circumventing provisions of law which is totally disgraceful. 15. In any event, CIT-10 Mumbai ought not to have succumbed to unjust demands of ACIT- 10(1) and instead ought to have admonished ACIT-10(1) for making such unjust request. CIT- 10 Mumbai ought to have known that there is no provision under Act which empowers CIT to temporarily withdraw order passed by him under Section 127(2) of Act for sake of administrative convenience or otherwise. If CIT-10 Mumbai was honestly of opinion that order passed under Section 127(2) of Act was required to be recalled for any valid reasons, then, 37 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 CIT-10 Mumbai ought to have issued notice to that effect to petitioner and after hearing petitioner ought to have passed any order as he deemed fit and serve same to petitioner. 16. In present case, admittedly, CIT-10 Mumbai has not issued any notice and has not heard petitioner before passing Corrigendum order and in fact said corrigendum order has not been communicated to petitioner before issuing impugned notice dated 30.03.2012 and admittedly alleged corrigendum order is served upon petitioner for first time today in Court. 17. In these circumstances, we quash and set aside impugned notice dated 30.03.2012 issued by ACIT-10(1) Mumbai based on corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 passed allegedly by CIT-10 Mumbai at behest of ACIT-10(1) Mumbai and in gross abuse of process of law. Apart from fact that CIT-10 Mumbai had no jurisdiction to temporarily suspend order passed under Section 127(2) of Act, in fact of present case, impugned corrigendum order passed behind back of petitioner without issuing any notice to petitioner, without hearing petitioner and admittedly uncommunicated to petitioner till date, would have no legal existence and therefore impugned notice dated 30.03.2012 based on legally non-existent corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 cannot be sustained. 32. Before us ld. CIT, DR supported AO s order by placing strong reliance on decisions of Hon ble Delhi High Court in cases of Abhishek Jain VsITO (supra) and SS Ahluwalia (supra). As observed earlier, these decisions were rendered in totally different factual context and therefore proposition laid down in these decisions cannot be applied. In case of Abhishek Jain (supra), AO at Noida had issued notice u/s 148 on basis of cash deposits made in ICICI Bank, Noida. In that case fact that assessee was regularly assessed in Delhi was not intimated to AO at Noida nor did assessee mention his PAN with ICICI Bank. Even assessee s address available with bank was that of Noida. In this case it was not brought on record by assessee that his case was transferred to Delhi by virtue of order u/s 127 passed by competent authority under whom AO at Noida was functioning. Court further found that it was only after period of limitation prescribed in Section 149 expired on 31st March, 2016, that assessee intimated AO at Noida that he had been regularly assessed in Delhi. On these facts, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that it was mala fide on part of assessee not to intimate AO at Noida prior to 31.03.2016 and that assessee waited for period of limitation to expire before raising this objection. In absence of any order u/s 127 and having noted that with reference to address made available by assessee to ICICI Bank in which cash deposits were found, Hon'ble High Court held that assessee was debarred from raising objection to AO s jurisdiction in terms of section 124(3)(b). In instant case, 38 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 however, appellant had mentioned its PAN in return of income filed for AY 2015- 16. By virtue of order u/s 127 dated 08.10.2008,it was within knowledge of AO at Delhi that jurisdiction over case of assessee solely vested with AO at Ranchi in month of June 2016. On these facts we therefore find that ratio laid down in judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court (supra) is not applicable because factual context in which it was rendered was vastly different. 33. Similarly, in case of S.S. Ahluwalia (supra), assessee was assessed at Delhi from 1980-81 to 1983-84. From assessment year 1984-85 to 1987-88, filed his returns at Dimapur. case of assessee was reopened u/s 148 by ACIT, Investigation, Delhi, on basis of CBI search. When question of jurisdiction came before Hon'ble High Court, it was held that where assessee shifts his residence etc., AO of place where assessee has shifted or otherwise will have jurisdiction and it is not necessary that in such case order u/s 127 is required to be passed. While going through decision, we note that there was also order u/s 127 of Act and case was transferred to ITO, Ward 20, New Delhi. Thus, case of S.S. Ahluwalia (supra) cannot be of any assistance to Revenue. 34. We note that in support of contentions raised ld. CIT, DR relied on certain observations in above decisions (supra). As noted, facts of both cases were materially different from facts involved in appellant s case. One has to bear in mind that text of any decision is rendered in context of facts which are before Court. It is therefore settled legal proposition that observations of Hon ble Court must be read in context of facts and issues before Hon ble Court for consideration. Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd (198 ITR 297) has observed as follows: It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out word or sentence from judgment of Court, divorced from context of question under consideration and treat it to be complete 'law' declared by Court. judgment must be read as whole and observations from judgment have to be considered in light of questions which were before Court. decision of Court takes its colour from questions involved in case in which it is rendered and while applying decision to latter case, Courts must carefully try to ascertain true principle laid down by decision of Court and not to 39 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 pick out words or sentences from judgment, divorced from context of questions under consideration by Court, to support their proceedings. 35. Coming back to admitted facts in present case, we hold that ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata framed assessment order dated 29.12.2017 pursuant to transfer of case orderedby PCIT, Central Patna dated 03.11.2017 u/s. 127 of Act, without there being valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of Act. In our opinion such order is bad in law as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT V Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (S.C) wherein Hon ble Supreme Court has held that issue of legally valid notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory for usurping jurisdiction to frame scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of Act and absence of valid notice u/s 143(2) is not curable defect. This view was reiterated by Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT Vs Laxman Das Khandelwal(108 taxmann.com 183). relevant observations are as follows: 5. At outset, it must be stated that out of two questions of law that arose for consideration in Hotel Blue Moon's case2 first question was whether notice under Section 143(2) would be mandatory for purpose of making assessment under Section 143(3) of Act. It was observed:- "3. Appellate Tribunal held, while affirming decision of CIT (A) that non-issue of notice under Section 143(2) is only procedural irregularity and same is curable. In appeal filed by assessee before Gauhati High Court, following two questions of law were raised for consideration and decision of High Court, they were: "(1) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case issuance of notice under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 within prescribed time-limit for purpose of making assessment under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory? And (2) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in view of undisputed findings arrived at by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), additions made under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. High Court, disagreeing with Tribunal, held, that provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in case where assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response to notice issued under Section 158-BC(a) proceeds to make inquiry. Accordingly, High Court answered question of law framed in affirmative and in favour of appellant and against Revenue. Revenue thereafter applied to this Court for special leave under Article 136, and same was granted, and hence this appeal. 13. only question that arises for our consideration in this batch of appeals is: whether service of notice on assessee under Section 143(2) within prescribed period of time is prerequisite for framing block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of Income Tax Act, 1961? 40 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 27. case of Revenue is that expression "so far as may be, apply" indicates that it is not expected to follow provisions of Section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 strictly for purpose of block assessments. We do not agree with submissions of learned counsel for Revenue, since we do not see any reason to restrict scope and meaning of expression "so far as may be, apply". In our view, where assessing officer in repudiation of return filed under Section 158-BC(a) proceeds to make enquiry, he has necessarily to follow provisions of Section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to following effect:- "292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances. Where assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated in any inquiry relating to assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under any provision of this Act, which is required to be served upon him, has been duly served upon him in time in accordance with provisions of this Act and such assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection in any proceeding or inquiry under this Act that notice was (a) Not served upon him; or (b) Not served upon him in time; or (c) Served upon him in improper manner: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where assessee has raised such objection before completion of such assessment or reassessment." 7. closer look at Section 292BB shows that if assessee has participated in proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in time; or (c) served upon him in improper manner. According to Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Advocate, since Respondent had participated in proceedings, provisions of Section 292BB would be complete answer. On other hand, Mr. Ankit Vijaywargia, learned Advocate, appearing for Respondent submitted that notice under Section 143(2) of Act was never issued which was evident from orders passed on record as well as stand taken by Appellant in memo of appeal. It was further submitted that issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of Act being prerequisite, in absence of such notice, entire proceedings would be invalid. 8. law on point as regards applicability of requirement of notice under Section 143(2) of Act is quite clear from decision in Blue Moon's case2. issue that however needs to be considered is impact of Section 292BB of Act. 9. According to Section 292BB of Act, if assessee had participated in proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as 41 ITA No. 1224/Kol/2019 M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, AY- 2015-16 detailed in said Section. scope of provision is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of assessee. It is, however, to be noted that Section does not save complete absence of notice. For Section 292BB to apply, notice must have emanated from department. It is only infirmities in manner of service of notice that Section seeks to cure. Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself. 10. Since facts on record are clear that no notice under Section 143(2) of Act was ever issued by Department, findings rendered. by High Court and Tribunal and conclusion arrived at were correct. We, therefore, see no reason to take different view in matter. 36. For reasons set out above therefore, we uphold objections raised by appellant against validity of impugned order u/s 143(3) for AY 2015-16. We accordingly hold that since in present case no valid notice u/s 143(2) was issued by AO who held jurisdiction over case of appellant, consequent order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2017 was legally unsustainable and therefore is null in eyes of law and therefore quashed. assessee accordingly succeeds on preliminary legal issue raised before us. 37. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in open court on 6th September, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (P. M. Jagtap) (Aby. T. Varkey) Vice President Judicial Member Dated : 6th September, 2019 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of order forwarded to: 1. Appellant M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, 101, Pragati Tower, 26, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 2 Respondent ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)-21, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) 4. CIT, Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail) /True Copy, By order, Assistant Registrar Rungta Irrigation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata