(1.) In spite of the direction no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in this matter. Pursuant to the earlier order supplementary affidavit has been filed.
(2.) This petition is directed against an order dated April 25,1994, passed by respondent No. 3, namely, the Commissioner, Moradabad, and the Order dated April 30, 1996, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Moradabad. The petitioners have also challenged various notices dated October 30, 1996 and March 12,1997, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range, Moradabad. The short facts of the case are narrated hereunder :
(3.) The first petitioner is having its principal place of business at Calcutta, as such since day one it has been filing returns in Calcutta and is being assessed by respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 has a factory and registered office at Moradabad. On or about September 13, 1993, respondent No. 4 issued notices to petitioner No. 1 for filing returns in Moradabad as it is having its registered place of business thereat. Despite repeated representation made by petitioner No. 1 for withdrawal of this notice the said respondent went on insisting to file returns there. Challenging the aforesaid action petitioner No. 1 filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court at its Lucknow Bench and this court passed an order directing the Commissioner of Lucknow to decide the question of jurisdiction as regards filing of returns. Respondent No. 3 in terms of the order of the High Court passed the aforesaid first mentioned impugned order dated April 25, 1994, and held that the Assessing Officer, Moradabad, had got jurisdiction as petitioner No. 1 is having registered office thereat. So petitioner No. 1 should have filed and in future would file returns with appropriate official, respondent No. 4. In spite of the decision no follow up action was taken by any of the officials at Moradabad, the matter was kept pending for two years. Meanwhile, petitioner No. 1 also prayed for recalling of the aforesaid order on the ground that petitioner No. 1 is having its principal place of business and/or controlling office at Calcutta and further all the time returns were being filed at Calcutta and the same were being assessed. So, under the provisions of Section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer concerned at Calcutta had and still has jurisdiction. This application for recalling was not disposed of specifically. On the contrary, by the subsequent notice petitioner No. 1 was asked to file returns at Moradabad on the strength of the earlier order of the Commissioner dated April 25, 1994, followed by the second impugned Order dated October 30, 1996.