ORDER
1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 31-3-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B in IT(SS)A No. 257/Delhi/ 01 relevant for the block period 1-4-1987 to 10-2-1998.
2. It appears that a search and seizure operation was conducted against the assessed who has been a resident of Bombay for more than 35 years and has been assessed in Bombay during that entire period. It appears that some order was allegedly passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act,1961 transferring the jurisdiction of the assessed to Delhi.
3. According to the assessed he was not even heard before any such alleged order was passed nor was he given any notice in respect thereof.
4. During the proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, some doubt was raised with regard to the existence of the order passed under Section 127 of the Act transferring the case of the assessed from Bombay to Delhi. To overcome any doubt in this regard, the Tribunal gave sufficient opportunities to the revenue to produce the order said to have been passed under Section 127 of the Act. We do not think it necessary to go into any further details in this regard except to note that the Tribunal has recorded that despite several opportunities given to the revenue to produce the assessment record as well as the alleged order under Section 127 of the Act, no such order has been produced. On this basis, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since there was no transfer order under Section 127 of the Act, the assessing officer in Delhi had no authority to assume jurisdiction. Accordingly, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer in Delhi was quashed.
5. On 30-11-2006 when the matter was listed for admission in this Court, learned Counsel for the revenue was heard for some time and she sought an adjournment, inter alia, to produce the record pertaining to the order said to have been passed under Section 127 of the Act. She also took sometime to obtain instructions whether the revenue is desirous of proceeding under Section 124 of the Act alone.
6. Today learned Counsel for the revenue informs us that efforts have been made to obtain a copy of the order passed under Section 127 of the Act, but it could not be obtained.
7. Learned Counsel for the revenue submits that the assessed did not challenge the order passed under Section 127 of the Act before any of the departmental authorities. We find from the order of the Tribunal that the case proceeded on the question whether the order exists at all or not and, therefore, this contention is rejected.
8. We have no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Tribunal that no transfer order was issued under Section 127 of the Act and that, therefore, the assessing officer in Delhi had no valid authority to assume jurisdiction in respect of the assessed. Even before us, the alleged order has not been produced for the last seven months or so.
9. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.