2013 (12) TMI 835 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer of case of a partnership firm - contravention, principles of natural justice and violation of Section 127 - Held that - Rightly in this case, a show-cause notice was issued and the petitioner was provided an opportunity to make objections and after considering the objections, this impugned order of transfer was made. The question is as to whether the transfer order has been communicated and whether it is required to be communicated. Though Section 127(2) of the Act does not speak about the communication of the order, but any order affects the party is to be communicated. The impugned order is to be communicated and it should be a reasoned order and it should assign reasons as to why the case of the petitioner is not considered. The Commissioner Income Tax at Gulburga is directed to pass fresh order and the order should be a reasoned order and the reasons to be assigned as to the rejection of the objections. - Consequently, the assessment order issued by the office at Belgaum is quashed. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues:
Challenge to transfer of file under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act; Violation of principles of natural justice; Non-communication of transfer order; Delay in challenging the order; Estoppel principle invoked by respondents.

Analysis:

Challenge to Transfer Order:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, challenged the transfer of its file from one Deputy Commissioner to another, citing contravention of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that principles of natural justice were not followed, as they were not given a chance to be heard before the transfer. The petitioner also highlighted the hardship caused by the transfer, including the need to relocate files and witnesses to a distant location. The petitioner contended that the transfer order was contrary to law and principles of natural justice.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 127 of the Act mandates a reasonable opportunity for parties to make objections before a transfer order is passed. Citing relevant court judgments, the counsel emphasized the necessity of hearing the affected party before transferring files. The failure to communicate the transfer order and provide reasons for the transfer were deemed violations of Section 127(2) of the Act and principles of natural justice.

Estoppel and Delay in Challenging Order:
The respondents invoked the principle of estoppel, claiming that the petitioner had participated in proceedings following the transfer order, thereby waiving their right to challenge the order. They also pointed out a significant delay in challenging the order, which they argued should lead to dismissal based on laches. The respondents contended that there was no violation of natural justice as objections were considered before issuing the transfer order.

Court's Decision:
After analyzing Section 127 of the Income Tax Act and relevant legal precedents, the court found merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court emphasized the importance of communicating transfer orders to affected parties and providing reasoned decisions. The court quashed the transfer order, directing the Commissioner of Income Tax to issue a fresh, reasoned order addressing the objections raised by the petitioner. The court also nullified the assessment order issued post-transfer and reserved the right for authorities to issue fresh notices within a specified time frame for reassessment.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues involved, including challenges to the transfer order, violations of natural justice, estoppel arguments, and the court's decision to quash the transfer order and direct a reassessment process.

← Previous Next →