JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan G. Sanghani for the respondents. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. The petitioner has challenged the notice for re-opening under Section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as the notice under Section 148 A(b) of the Act and order under Section 148 A(d) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 5. The petitioner has also challenged the reference to Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer by order dated 24th June, 2023 to determine the Fair Market Value of tangible assets added during the year by the petitioner on the ground that such reference to Departmental Valuation Officer was made only with a view to extend the period of limitation to frame the assessment. 6. The brief facts of the case are under: 6.1. The petitioner filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 22nd October, 2018 showing NIL income. The Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26th February, 2021 accepting the return of income showing NIL income. 6.2. Thereafter, on 22nd September, 2021, a survey/search action under Section 132 /133A of the Act was carried out at M/s.Ratnakala Exports Private Limited and note book, registers and loose papers were found during the survey proceedings and the survey proceedings were converted to search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act on 24th September, 2021 at the premises of the petitioner. 6.3. The order under Section 127 (2) of the Act was passed on 29th November, 2021 to transfer the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer of the petitioner from ACIT Circle 1(1), Rajkot to DCIT CC-2, Surat. 6.4. Prior to the passing of the order under Section 127 of the Act, a show-cause notice dated 16.11.2021 was issued and the petitioner filed reply raising objections on 23rd November, 2021. 6.5. 6.4. Prior to the passing of the order under Section 127 of the Act, a show-cause notice dated 16.11.2021 was issued and the petitioner filed reply raising objections on 23rd November, 2021. 6.5. The petitioner filed an application under Section 154 of the Act on 14.12.2021 to rectify the order of transfer of jurisdiction from Rajkot to Surat, however, the same was rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 vide order dated 17th March, 2022. 6.6. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of change of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer from respondent No.1-ACIT, Rajkot to respondent No.2-ACIT, Central Circle-2, Surat, the respondent No.1 issued the notice under Section 148 A(b) of the Act on 21st March, 2022 and thereafter, the impugned order dated 30th March, 2022 under Section 148 A(d) of the Act was passed and notice was also issued on the same day under Section 148 of the Act by the respondent No.1-ACIT, Rajkot. 6.7. Thereafter, on 25th April, 2022, the DDIT/ADIT-Surat issued a letter proposing to centralise the case of the petitioner at Mumbai and called upon the petitioner to submit the objections, if any, against such proposal. 6.8. The petitioner filed a detailed reply on 28th April, 2022 objecting to transfer the jurisdiction to Mumbai and requested to transfer the jurisdiction to Rajkot. However, no response was received against the objection letter. Thereafter, the assessment proceedings were initiated by the respondent No.2-ACIT, Surat and various notices were issued from time to time which were replied by the petitioner as under : Notice issued u/s Notice Date Response Date 143(2) 19.10.2022 18.01.2023 142(1) 21.02.2023 01.03.2023 142(1) 16.03.2023 21.03.2023 25.03.2023 142(1) 23.03.2023 27.03.2023 6.9. The respondent No.2 issued show-cause notices on 17th June, 2023 and 20th June, 2023. By Email dated 21st June, 2023, the respondent No.2 also informed the petitioner that time limit is extended under the Explanation to Section 153 of the Act and also referred the case to the respondent No.3-District Valuation Officer so as to determine the value of the fixed assets acquired by the petitioner alleging that the assets were not acquired in the name of the petitioner and were not being used for the purpose of business of the petitioner. The petitioner by replies dated 22nd June, 2023 and 23rd June, 2023 contended that the validity of notice under proceedings have become time barred. 6.10. The petitioner by replies dated 22nd June, 2023 and 23rd June, 2023 contended that the validity of notice under proceedings have become time barred. 6.10. The Assessing Officer, for the Assessment Year 2021-22, also issued the show-cause notices on 17th June, 2023 and 20th June, 2023 and also informed the petitioner by Email dated 21st June, 2023 that time limit is extended under Explanation to Section 153 of the Act by referring the case to the District Valuation Officer. 6.11. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed both these petitions. 7.1. Learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that extention of time sought by the respondent No.2 is based on erroneous understanding of law because provisions of Explanation 1(xii) to Section 153 of the Act do not apply in the facts of the case. 7.2. It was submitted that the Explanation 1(xii) to Section 153 of the Act pertains to a case of proceedings initiated against the third person post search and in such cases, there needs to be recording of satisfaction but in the facts of the case, no satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer. 7.3. It was also contended that in view of the provisio to Section 153 (2) of the Act, the Assessment Order in present petition must have been passed by 31st March, 2023. 7.4. It was submitted that though the Assessment Order was time barred on 31st March, 2023, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer under Explanation 1(v) to Section 153 of the Act which is nothing but a colourable exercise of powers as the Assessing Officer had no reason to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer. It was submitted that it is apparent that only with a view to see that the time limit for completion of assessment is extended, the reference is made to the District Valuation Officer. 7.5. It was submitted that in alternative, the respondent-Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to re-open the assessment proceedings in view of the Order dated 29.11.2021 having been passed under Section 127 of the Act to transfer the case of the petitioner to Surat though the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 was issued by the respondent No.1. 7.6. It was submitted that in alternative, the respondent-Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to re-open the assessment proceedings in view of the Order dated 29.11.2021 having been passed under Section 127 of the Act to transfer the case of the petitioner to Surat though the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 was issued by the respondent No.1. 7.6. It was also submitted by learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar that the respondent No.1 could not have issued the notice under Section 148 A(b) of the Act nor could have passed the order under Section 148 A(d) of the Act and as a consequence, could not have issued the notice under Section 148 of the Act as the jurisdiction of the petitioner was transferred prior to issuance of such notices to the respondent No.2. 7.7. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer could not have relied upon the delay in transfer of the PAN to assume the jurisdiction for re-opening of the assessment. 7.8. Learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar also referred to the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act where none of the notices referred to the issue of purchase of acquisition of the assets or utilisation of the assets purchased by the petitioner and it was therefore submitted that the respondent No.2 could not have referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer so as to extend the limitation for completion of the assessment proceedings. 7.9. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Maruti Koatsu Cylinders Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2024] 165 taxman.com 332; (ii) Principal Commissioner of Income- tax Versus Divine Light Finance Ltd. reported in [2024] 165 taxmann.com 254 (Calcutta); (iii) Vedanta Resources Ltd. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation, Bhubaneswar reported in [2023] 150 taxmann.com 57 (Orissa); (iv) Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus Principal Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2023] 153 taxmann.com 379 (Himachal Pradesh); (v) Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. Versus Virendra Singh reported in [2012] 27 taxmann.com 37 (Bom.). 8.1. Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation, Bhubaneswar reported in [2023] 150 taxmann.com 57 (Orissa); (iv) Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus Principal Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2023] 153 taxmann.com 379 (Himachal Pradesh); (v) Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. Versus Virendra Singh reported in [2012] 27 taxmann.com 37 (Bom.). 8.1. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani for the respondent- Assessing Officer submitted that the respondent No.1 issued the notices under Sections 148 A(b) and 148 of the Act and passed the order under Section 148 A(d) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 because the PAN was not transferred to the respondent No.2 and once, the PAN was transferred, the assessment proceedings were initiated by the respondent No.2 so as to comply with the order passed under Section 127 of the Act. 8.2. It was further pointed out that the petitioner-assessee has filed reply to the notices issued by the respondent No.2 from time to time and therefore, the petitioner- assessee now cannot submit that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction once having participated in the assessment proceedings. 8.3. It was also submitted by learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani that it is for the respondent-Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer and it cannot be said that the matter is referred to the District Valuation Officer only with a view to extend the time limit. 8.4. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2: “6. With reference to paras 3.2 and 3.3, the petitioner has contended that the jurisdiction of the assessee was transferred vide order dated 29.11.2021 u/s. 127(2) of the Act from the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot (Respondent No.1) to the ACIT, Central Circle-2, Surat (Respondent No.2 herein). Therefore, the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the Respondent no. 1 is without jurisdiction. In this regard, it is submitted that petitioner was given opportunity by the PCIT-1, Rajkot vide notice issued u/s. 127 of the Act dated 17.11.2021 to submit the response for proposed Centralization of the case u/s. 127(2) of the Act on or before 25.11.2021. However, the assessee remained non- compliant. The order u/s 127(2) of the Act came to be passed on 29.11.2021 whereby case of petitioner was transferred from Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2. However, the assessee remained non- compliant. The order u/s 127(2) of the Act came to be passed on 29.11.2021 whereby case of petitioner was transferred from Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2. Subsequently, the petitioner vide letter dated 02.12.2021 received on 14.12.2021 stated that it had raised objection against centralization on 23.11.2021. In view of the above objection raised before the Pr.CIT-1, Rajkot, the transfer of jurisdiction was kept in abeyance till the disposal of the objection filed by the assessee vide letter dated 02.12.2021. It is pertinent to mention that the jurisdiction of the assessee (i.e, transfer of PAN) are transferred through the ITBA Portal in PAN-module where consequential Order u/s. 127(2) of the Act are passed to give the systematic effect of PAN transfer. In the instant case, the PAN was not transferred till the disposal of the objection raised by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was given another opportunity vide letter dated 09.02.2022 with request to file afresh objection if any on such proposed transfer and centralization of case on or before 17.02.2022. However, the petitioner did not file any reply. The reason recorded for proposed transfer of jurisdiction by the PCIT-1, Rajkot u/s. 127 of the Act is as under: "In the company, M/s. Slimtile Put. Ltd. engaged in the manufacturing of tiles, Sh. Ranchhodbhai K. Detroja had substantial interest and for surrender of his rights in the said company received part money in cheque and cash. During the course of survey and search proceedings at the premises of the company several incriminating documents / evidences related to unaccounted cash were seized. Warrant u/s. 132A of the Act was issued and executed in the name of assessee M/s. Slimtile Put. Ltd., hence the case of the assessee is required to be taken up for assessment along with other assessee in a coordinated manner. In view of the CBDT, New Delhi's letter F. No. 187/3/2020-ITA-I dated 18.09.2020, the case needs to be centralized." As the petitioner did not raise any objection within the stipulated date of 17.02.2022, the application of the assessee for the objection raised against the transfer of jurisdiction was disposed off as rejected vide order dated 17.03.2022. 7. In view of the CBDT, New Delhi's letter F. No. 187/3/2020-ITA-I dated 18.09.2020, the case needs to be centralized." As the petitioner did not raise any objection within the stipulated date of 17.02.2022, the application of the assessee for the objection raised against the transfer of jurisdiction was disposed off as rejected vide order dated 17.03.2022. 7. From the above, it is apparent from the order dated 17.03.2022 issued by the PCIT-1, Rajkot that the jurisdiction over the assessee was not changed as the consequential effect to transfer the jurisdiction u/s. 127(2) of the Act by transfer of PAN of the assessee was not executed on ITBA Portal in PAN module. Further, the jurisdiction of the assessee was transferred from the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot to ACIT, Central Circle-2, Surat by transfer of PAN on TBA Portal on 23.06.2022. A screenshot of such transfer of PAN on 23.06.2022 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R1. In light of the above, the impugned notice dated 21.03.2022 issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act, the Order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2022 as well as the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer viz. ACIT-Circle-2(1), Rajkot (Respondent No.1) is legal and valid. I submit that post transfer of PAN of the assessee on 23.06.2022, the assessment proceedings were continued by the new Assessing Officer viz. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Surat (Respondent No.2).” 8.5. With regard to the assumption of jurisdiction for re-opening of the assessment, it was submitted that on the basis of the information available on the Insight Portal as per the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT, it was revealed that as per the documents seized during the survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Act at the premises of M/s.Ratnakala Exports Private Limited on 23.09.2021 and during the search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act at the premises of one Shri Shailesh Godhani-Accountant of M/s.Ratnakala Exports Private Limited, it was found that the petitioner has transferred total Rs.36,25,99,250/- which included cash of Rs.28,25,99,250/- to Navsari and Mumbai Offices of Shri Ranchhodbhai Detroja who in the statement recorded on 21.09.2021 failed to give any explanation for the same. 8.6. It was therefore submitted that the Assessing Officer was justified in re-opening of the assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19. 8.7. 8.6. It was therefore submitted that the Assessing Officer was justified in re-opening of the assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19. 8.7. With regard to the extention of time limit, reliance was placed on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2: “17. In view of the above provisions of Section 153 (2) read with proviso thereof and Explanation 1 thereto, it is apparent that for completion of assessment in search relevant cases, maximum period which can be excluded is 180 days from the date of search action conducted u/s. 132 of the Act to the date of handing over the relevant seized materials to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Investigation Wing, Surat has last handed over the seized materials to the Respondent no.2 on 28.12.2022. A copy of communication dated 28.12.2022 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R4. Further, initially the time limit to complete the assessment in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 was 31.03.2023. Therefore, in view of the above date of 28.12.2022 of handing over seized materials, the maximum period of 180 days were excluded from the time limitation date of 31.03.2023 of assessment completion being counted from 28.12.2022 to the new limitation 25.06.2023. Therefore, the assessing officer has rightly extended the limitation date by 180 days in case of the Assessee for AY. 2018-19 in adherence to Section 153 of the Act. Moreover, the AO had balance limitation period from 29.12.2022 till 31.03.2023 to Subhash K. Shah frame assessment which is also required to be added. In light of the above, the extended time limit to frame assessment was 28.9.2023. Therefore, the contention that impugned show cause notices dated 17.06.2023 and 20.06.2023 issued for AY 2018-19 is barred by limitation does not hold any merit and deserves to be rejected. 18. The petitioner-assessee has also contended that the reference made by the Respondent No. 1 to the Respondent No. 2 u/s. 142A of the Act for determining valuation of the fixed assets vide letter dated 24.06.2023 is colorable exercise of executive powers. The aforesaid contention is baseless and incorrect. It is submitted that various assets in the form of movable and immovable properties were discovered during the assessment proceedings on perusal of the financial statements, namely the Audit report, Balance Sheet, and Profit & Loss Account. The aforesaid contention is baseless and incorrect. It is submitted that various assets in the form of movable and immovable properties were discovered during the assessment proceedings on perusal of the financial statements, namely the Audit report, Balance Sheet, and Profit & Loss Account. The assessee is claiming depreciation on these properties from the year of acquisition after putting them to use in the business as defined in Section 32 of the Act. However, the purchase value of the assets and the ownership of such assets as claimed by assessee were appearing apparently incorrect in light to the provision of the Act and therefore, the source of acquisition of such assets were also prima-facie were not found to be accountable correctly in absence of corroborative evidences produced by assessee during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, to prevent the leakage of the revenue and determine the actual value of the assets, the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings vide letter dated 24.06.2023 has referred the case of the assessee u/s. 142A of the Act to the Valuation Officer to determine the actual price of movable/ immovable assets and in accordance of the same, the depreciation/ capital gain or loss claimed in the return of income shall be re-computed. 19. The contention of petitioner that reference under section 142A of the Act was made at the fag end of limitation is incorrect in light of the above submissions to the effect that the limitation was extended till 28/9/2023.” 8.8. 19. The contention of petitioner that reference under section 142A of the Act was made at the fag end of limitation is incorrect in light of the above submissions to the effect that the limitation was extended till 28/9/2023.” 8.8. Referring to the above averments, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly extended the time limitation date by 180 days in case of Assessment Year 2018-19 by making a reference to the District Valuation Officer for determining the valuation of the fixed assets vide letter dated 24th June, 2023 and the same is not a colourable exercise of powers as alleged by the petitioner in asmuch as, during the course of assessment proceedings and on perusal of the financial statement, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the petitioner was claiming depreciation on the properties from the year of acquisition after putting them to use in the business, however, the purchase value of the assets and the ownership of such assets as claimed by the petitioner were not correct as per the provisions of the Act and therefore, it was necessary to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer under Section 142A of the Act. It was submitted that the petitioner could not raise any objection for referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings. It was submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to raise all such contentions in the Appeal, which may be preferred before the CIT (Appeals) and no interference may be made by exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of nullifying the assessment proceedings on the ground of limitation at this stage. 9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that the facts of the present petition are glaring to the effect that once the order under Section 127 of the Act is passed to transfer the jurisdiction from the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, merely because effect of transfer of PAN is not given in the Computer System of the respondent, the respondent No.1 could not have assumed the jurisdiction to re- open the assessment under Section 148 of the Act, as he had no jurisdiction once the order under Section 127 to transfer the jurisdiction is already passed. Therefore, only on this ground, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act along with the order under Section 148 A(d) of the Act having been passed by the respondent No.1 without jurisdiction are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.