2015 (12) TMI 1706 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - The following questions are framed for determination (i) Did the notice dated 18th March 2013 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata to the Assessee at the address shown therein satisfy the requirements of Section 263 (1) of the Act as regards providing the Assessee an opportunity of being heard? (ii) If the answer to Question (i) is in the affirmative, whether on merits the order dated 30th March 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata under Section 263 of the Act is sustainable in law?

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional issue regarding the transfer of assessment files from Kolkata to Delhi for AY 2008-09.
2. Preliminary objection raised by the Revenue regarding the maintainability of the appeal in the High Court.
3. Questions framed for determination regarding the notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata, and the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertains to the transfer of assessment files from Kolkata to Delhi for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. The Assessee shifted its registered office from Kolkata to Delhi in 2012, following a general restructuring order by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in 2014. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) in Kolkata sent the assessment folder to Delhi based on jurisdictional changes. The Assessee's counsel cited a previous case to support jurisdiction based on the location of the Assessing Officer at the time of filing the appeal.

2. The Revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal in the High Court. The objection was based on the lack of a specific request from the Assessee for the transfer of files from AY 2008-09. The Revenue argued that without a formal request, the Court should not rely on the letter from the ITO, Kolkata. However, the Assessee's counsel pointed out that the Assessee had been filing returns in Delhi from AY 2012-13 onwards, in compliance with the CBDT order on restructuring jurisdiction. The High Court referred to a previous judgment to establish jurisdiction based on the location of the Assessing Officer handling the case.

3. The High Court framed questions for determination regarding the notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata, and the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. The questions focused on whether the notice provided the Assessee with an opportunity to be heard and the legality of the order passed by the Commissioner. The Court allowed both parties to submit additional documents within a specified timeframe and scheduled the case for further proceedings, granting the parties the option to request an early hearing if necessary.