2002 (7) TMI 46 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer of case - The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that since the Central Circle office is at Kottayam, the files can be transferred to Kottayam. I do not know how this would help the petitioners who are putting forward the case of inconvenience on account of transfer of files when the partners/directors are residing in and around Calicut. Apparently, the transfer of all files to Calicut should suit the convenience of the partners and directors of the firm and company who are in control of the affairs of these concerns. Of course, it is for the Department to consider consolidation of all the files of the firms and companies and the partners and directors, including those who are now assessed at Calicut and send it to the appropriate station. This is a matter for consideration by the Department. Since the petitioners request for transfer of the files to Kottayam, the Chief Commissioner can consider the case of transfer of the files to Kottayam, if it suits the Department. However, I make it clear that there is no scope for interference by this court in these matters which are purely administrative in nature; except when there is allegation of mala fides or want of jurisdiction. No assessee has a vested right to have his assessment decided by any officer or at any place. It is for the head of the Department to allocate work among the officers under him subject to the Act and Rules.

Summary

Issues:
Transfer of income-tax assessment files to a different jurisdiction causing inconvenience to the petitioners.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two connected cases where a partnership firm and a private limited company challenge the transfer of their income-tax assessment files to a different jurisdiction. The petitioners argue that the transfer to Calicut from Kottayam and Thiruvalla is inconvenient and causes trouble for their appearance in assessment proceedings. They contend that they are not to be assessed as a search case and that the notice under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act is misconceived. The respondents justify the transfer to centralize the group of cases for proper investigation and assessment of all the assessees belonging to the "Amrutha Group." The Chief Commissioner has the power under section 127(1) of the Income-tax Act to transfer files for better handling, and in this case, the transfer is deemed necessary for efficient assessment of related transactions. The petitioners' argument of inconvenience due to the transfer is not considered sufficient to prevent the transfer for better handling of cases. The Department's decision to transfer the files to Calicut, where most partners/directors reside, is deemed justified for efficient handling of the cases.

The judgment emphasizes that the Department has the authority to transfer files between Assessing Officers within its jurisdiction for efficient handling of assessments. The court notes that the inconvenience caused to the petitioners does not grant them the right to prevent the transfer of files. The Department's decision to transfer files to Calicut, where most partners/directors reside, is considered reasonable for better coordination and understanding of related transactions. The court clarifies that interference in administrative matters is limited unless there are allegations of mala fides or lack of jurisdiction. The judgment highlights that no assessee has a vested right to choose the assessing officer or the assessment location, as the allocation of work among officers is at the discretion of the head of the Department, subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules.

In conclusion, the original petitions challenging the transfer of income-tax assessment files are disposed of, with the court upholding the Department's decision to transfer the files to Calicut for better coordination and efficient handling of the cases involving the partnership firm and the private limited company. The judgment underscores the administrative nature of such decisions and the authority of the Department to allocate work among officers based on operational requirements, without granting the assessee the right to choose the assessing officer or assessment location.