JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Muzaffarnagar passed in revision filed under Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.10.2001 is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 2. Sri S.D. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner/assessee submits that three issues arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. (A) The order passed by the assessing authority dated 24.8.2001 in respect of the block period i.e. 1.4.1988 to 17.3.1999 was an ex parte. No order under Section 127 for jurisdictional powers being conferred/transferred in favour of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Saharanpur was ever brought to his notice. (B) There is no order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act conferring jurisdiction upon the learned Joint Commissioner, Saharanpur to proceed in the matter. Therefore, the entire proceedings suffer for want of jurisdiction. (C) The limitation for making of an order of assessment in respect of the block period 1.4.1988 to 17.3.1999 would expire on 31.3.2001. The order of assessment has been passed on 24.8.2001. He further points out that whatever plea may have been available to the department for the purpose alleging extension of the period of limitation with reference to the order passed under Section 142 (2-A) the same has become non-existent in view of the order of the Writ Court dated 3.8.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 991 of 2001 filed by the present assessee whereunder the order under Section 142 (2-A) has been quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the department however submits that the plea of limitation was not pressed in the proceedings under Section 264. Even otherwise no findings has been recorded in the order impugned on the said issue. With regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax, Saharanpur to proceed in the matter, it is submitted that although in the A.O.’s report it is mentioned that no order under Section 127 had been passed yet the same is not conclusive. The records have to be examined for the purpose and specific finding has to be recorded as to whether any order exists on record with confers jurisdiction upon the authority which had made the order. Learned counsel for the Department refers to the Notification dated 1.8.2001 whereunder territorial jurisdiction was transferred to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Saharanpur. The records have to be examined for the purpose and specific finding has to be recorded as to whether any order exists on record with confers jurisdiction upon the authority which had made the order. Learned counsel for the Department refers to the Notification dated 1.8.2001 whereunder territorial jurisdiction was transferred to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Saharanpur. Therefore, he submits that no order under Section 127 is required. 4. It is pointed out that the Joint Commissioner under the order impugned has set aside the order of assessing authority and has remanded the matter for assessment de novo. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have examined the records. 6. The issue qua the assessment order being ex parte may not detain the Court as for the same reason the Joint Commissioner under the impugned order has set aside the same and has remanded the matter for fresh assessment. So far as the issue of jurisdiction of learned Joint Commissioner, Income Tax, Saharanpur to proceed with the matter is concerned, this Court finds that the A.O. in his report in the aforesaid revision had stated that no order under Section 127 was ever passed, yet the competence of the Joint Commissioner, Saharanpur has to be examined on the basis of material on record and it has to be decided as the matter of fact as to whether the learned Joint Commissioner, Saharanpur had the jurisdiction in the matter or not for the purpose notification dated 1.8.2001 is also to be taken into consideration. 7. Suffice is to record that the learned Joint Commissioner, Income Tax, Saharanpur before proceeding any further in the matter of assessment after remand shall specifically examine from the records as to whether he is authorised under law to deal with the assessment or not. It is only if the answer to the above is in affirmative that he shall proceed further in the matter. The issue as to whether the notification dated 1.8.2001 would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax shall specifically be dealt with. 8. The assessing authority shall thereafter examine the objections raised with regard to limitation having expired on 31.3.2001 and the assessment proceedings being beyond limitation. The issue as to whether the notification dated 1.8.2001 would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax shall specifically be dealt with. 8. The assessing authority shall thereafter examine the objections raised with regard to limitation having expired on 31.3.2001 and the assessment proceedings being beyond limitation. It shall record his specific finding with reference to the material evidence and statutory provisions whereunder help can be drawn for the purpose of extending the period of limitation for the assessment. The order passed by the Writ Court dated 23.8.2004 in Writ Petition No. 991 of 2001 shall be kept in mind. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. ————