2013 (6) TMI 283 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer of case - section 127 - Grievance in the petition is that the exercise of power is ultra vires section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as there was disagreement between the Chief Commissioner of Income tax - It was also submitted that since the case does not fall under section 127(2)(a), the power of transfer, if at all, would be exercised under section 127(2)(b) by such officers who may be specially authorized by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, which has not been done in this case. Held that - it cannot be held that there was any lack of agreement between the Commissioner of Income-tax, Dibrugarh, from whose jurisdiction the case is transferred or any higher authority with the Delhi Commissioner. It cannot be held that the opinion formed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Dibrugarh, is in any manner vitiated. There is material to show that there was a search and seizure at Delhi and there is allegation of tax evasion at Delhi which is being investigated at Delhi. It cannot be held that the order transferring the cases is beyond the scope of the statutory power under section 127 of the Act. - Decided against the assessee.

Issues:
1. Validity of order transferring assessment cases from Dibrugarh to New Delhi under section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Disagreement between Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Shillong, and Director General of Taxes (Investigation), New Delhi.
3. Exercise of power under section 127(2)(a) vs. section 127(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Allegation of tax evasion and necessity for centralized investigation.
5. Compliance with procedural requirements in transferring assessment cases.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petition sought the quashing of an order transferring assessment cases from Dibrugarh to New Delhi for coordinated investigation and administrative convenience under section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The impugned order was based on a search and seizure operation at New Delhi and subsequent findings of tax evasion by the group in Delhi. The petitioner contested the order, arguing that it was ultra vires section 127(2)(a) due to disagreement between authorities and suggested that section 127(2)(b) should have been applied. The court found no personal mala fides and upheld the order, noting concurrence from New Delhi authorities and the necessity for detailed investigations in Delhi and the North East.

2. The disagreement between the Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Shillong, and the Director General of Taxes (Investigation), New Delhi, was raised as a concern in the petition. However, the court determined that there was no lack of agreement between the relevant authorities. The decision to transfer the cases was supported by the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, and the detailed investigations required in Delhi and the North East justified the centralization of the cases in New Delhi.

3. The issue of exercising power under section 127(2)(a) as opposed to section 127(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was also addressed. The court found that the power of transfer was appropriately exercised under section 127(2)(a) by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Dibrugarh, with concurrence from New Delhi authorities. The procedural requirements, including issuing a show-cause notice and considering the petitioner's reply, were duly followed before passing the final order for transfer.

4. The judgment highlighted the necessity for centralized investigation due to specific evidence of tax evasion in Delhi and the major business activities of the group being centered around New Delhi. The court emphasized that detailed and coordinated investigations were essential, which could only be effectively conducted under a central charge in New Delhi. The order to transfer the cases was deemed necessary for effective investigation and administrative convenience.

5. Finally, the court concluded that the order transferring the assessment cases from Dibrugarh to New Delhi was within the scope of the statutory power under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no ground for interference. However, the petitioner was not debarred from seeking retransfer of the cases at a later stage if a case could be made out for it. The judgment emphasized compliance with procedural and statutory requirements in transferring assessment cases for effective investigation and administrative convenience.

← Previous Next →