Rajes Kumar, J.@mdashBy means of the present writ petitions, the Petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dt. 28th March, 2005 issued by Respondent No. 3 for the asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 2000-01 u/s 148 of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"); notice dt. 3rd March, 2006 issued by Respondent No. 3 for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 u/s 148 of the Act; and the notice dt. 13th May, 2004 issued under Sections 274 r/w Section 271 of the Act by the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle Meerut, Ghaziabad.
2. Since all the writ petitions raise common dispute, they are being decided together.
3. It appears that the Petitioners are the Income Tax Assessees and were under the jurisdiction of the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Noida. It appears that search and seizures were made on 19th March, 2002 at the premises of Dr. Sharad B. Sahai and Dr. (Mrs.) Anita Sahai. After the search the CIT, Ghaziabad, vide order dt. 3rd Sept., 2002, passed the order u/s 127 of the Act and transferred the cases of the Petitioners from Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Noida to Dy. CIT, Central Circle, Meerut. The Petitioners filed Writ Petn. Nos. 3004 of 2002 and 3005 of 2002 challenging the validity of warrant of authorization u/s 132(1) of the Act and initiation of the block assessment proceeding u/s 158BC of the Act. It also appears that during the course of arguments an additional point has been raised challenging the transfer of the case from Noida to Meerut. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dt. 6th Feb., 2004 [reported as
4. Now Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Meerut has issued notices u/s 148 of the Act for the asst. yrs. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and notices u/s 274 r/w Section 271 of the Act which are being challenged.
5. Heard Sri Dhruv Agrawal, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Nikhil Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned standing counsel.
6. The contention of the Petitioners is that the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Meerut had no jurisdiction to issue the notices u/s 148 and u/s 274 r/w Section 271 of the Act. He submitted that the cases had been transferred under order dt. 3rd Sept., 2002 passed by the CIT u/s 127 of the Act from Noida to Meerut for the co-ordinated post-search investigation and meaningful assessment and once the search itself had been quashed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petitions of the Petitioners, the very basis for transfer of the cases ceased and the transfer order dt. 3rd Sept., 2002 passed by the CIT, Ghaziabad stands vacated and has become null and, therefore, the authority of Noida had only the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 148 of the Act or any other proceedings under the Act and not by the IT authority of Meerut.
7. Learned standing counsel submitted that in the writ order the validity of the order dt. 3rd Sept., 2002 passed u/s 127 of the Act, by the CIT had not been adjudicated and the said order had not been set aside and, therefore, the transfer order still validly exists and under the transfer order, Respondent No. 3 had a jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding under the Act. He submitted that the cases of the Petitioners along with other persons had been transferred to centralize them for coordinated post-search investigation and meaningful assessment in view of the Board''s instructions. He submitted that even though the search has been declared illegal and the block assessment could not be made but the material found at the time of search can be used for the purposes of assessment. He submitted that unless the order u/s 127 of the Act passed by the CIT is being set aside by any of the competent authorities, the order stands valid and the authority to whom the cases had been transferred under the transfer order dt. 3rd Sept., 2002 u/s 127 of the Act is the only competent authority to initiate the proceeding and Noida authority ceases to have jurisdiction to initiate proceeding and pass any assessment order. He submitted that even if the search was declared as illegal the order passed u/s 127 of the Act may not be deemed to have been vacated. He further submitted that even assuming that one of the reasons for transfer of the case may not exist but it may not invalidate the order u/s 127 of the Act.
8. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. We do not find any substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Undisputedly, the order dt. 3rd Sept., 2002 passed by the CIT, Ghaziabad u/s 127 of the Act transferring the cases of the Petitioners from Noida to Meerut has not been set aside by this Court or any of the competent Courts. The order is still valid and exists. Merely because the search warrant has been quashed, the order u/s 127 cannot be deemed to have been vacated and reduced to nullity. After the search, the cases of the Petitioners along with other Assessees had been transferred from Noida to Meerut to centralize the same for co-ordinated post-search investigation and meaningful assessment in view of the Board''s instructions. The search may have been declared illegal but the post-search assessment has to take place. It is a settled principle of law that even if a search is declared illegal the material found at the time of search can be utilized for the purposes of assessment. Therefore, the co-ordinated post-search investigation and meaningful assessment has to take place. It may be that on account of search being declared illegal, the block assessment u/s 158BC of the Act cannot be made but the regular assessment or the reassessment contemplated under the Act can be made.
9. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that merely because the warrant of authorization had been quashed and search was declared illegal the order passed by the CIT, Ghaziabad dt. 3rd Sept., 2002 u/s 127 of the Act cannot be deemed to have been vacated. It still validly exists and under the transfer order only the IT authority of Noida (sic.-Meerut) has a jurisdiction to initiate the assessment proceeding. Therefore, the initiation of proceeding u/s 148 r/w Section 147 by the Asstt. CIT, Gautam Budh Nagar (sic. Meerut) and any other proceeding under the Act cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
10. The writ petitions stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
