9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of notice and order under Income-tax Act 2. Transfer of case jurisdiction 3. Requirement of recording and communicating reasons for transfer 4. Communication of order to the assessee 5. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer 6. Assessee's right to challenge jurisdiction 7. Completion of assessment and grievance 1. Quashing of notice and order under Income-tax Act: The petitioner sought to quash a notice and order under the Income-tax Act, claiming them to be illegal and violative of the Constitution. The petitioner, engaged in diamond cutting, objected to the transfer of the case from Rajkot to Bhavnagar, alleging financial and physical hardship. The case was transferred despite objections, leading to the petitioner filing a petition against the proceedings initiated. 2. Transfer of case jurisdiction: The transfer of the case jurisdiction from Rajkot to Bhavnagar was contested by the petitioner, citing inconvenience and adverse effects on business. The court examined the reasons for transfer, emphasizing the need for in-depth investigation and coordinated action, especially in relation to other cases like that of Bhavani Gems group. The Deputy Commissioner justified the transfer based on the requirement for a comprehensive investigation. 3. Requirement of recording and communicating reasons for transfer: Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Ajantha Industries v. CBDT, the court highlighted the mandatory nature of recording and communicating reasons for transferring a case under section 127(1) of the Act. Failure to provide reasons to the assessee was deemed a violation, as it deprived the assessee of the opportunity to challenge the order on various grounds. 4. Communication of order to the assessee: The court noted that the order under section 127(2) assigning the case to Bhavnagar was communicated to the assessee, as evidenced by correspondence between the assessee and the tax authorities. Despite initial claims of non-receipt, subsequent communications confirmed that the assessee was aware of the order, thereby implying consent to the proceedings. 5. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer: Section 124 of the Act outlines the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, restricting the right of the assessee to challenge jurisdiction after a certain period. The court emphasized the importance of timely action by the assessee in case of jurisdictional concerns, especially in the context of block assessment proceedings. 6. Assessee's right to challenge jurisdiction: The court highlighted that the petitioner, assisted by legal counsel, should have taken timely action to challenge jurisdiction under relevant sections of the Act. Failure to do so before the assessment was completed limited the grounds on which the assessee could contest the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. 7. Completion of assessment and grievance: The court rejected the petition, noting that the assessee had allowed the assessment process to be completed without raising substantial objections. The petitioner's consent to the assessment order and subsequent appeal indicated a lack of merit in challenging the jurisdiction post-assessment. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action in such matters.
|
