2013 (12) TMI 1307 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of notice u/s 148 - Held that - The assessing authority have relevant material or that the reasons given by him under Section 148 (2) of the Act are not required to be considered by us for adjudication at this stage - The petitioner has been served with notice under Section 148 - It was open to him to file objections - If the matter has not been decided by the assessing authority, it is still open to him to file objections to the issuance of notice, which the assessing authority is bound to consider and decide by passing speaking order. The petitioner was to be assessed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Agra. The matter was transferred, in accordance with the assignments made by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - Partly allowed in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Transfer of case from Asstt. Commissioner, Income Tax-1 to Asstt. Commissioner, Income Tax, Circle 4 (1).
3. Jurisdiction of various ranges as per the order under Section 120 (2) of the Act.

Issue 1: Validity of notice under Section 148:
The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, claiming that the reasons provided by the assessing authority were insufficient. The notice alleged that income had escaped assessment due to the buy-back of shares by the company from the petitioner, who is the Managing Director. The petitioner argued that the reasons given were not substantial enough to warrant the notice under Section 148. However, the department contended that relevant records and assessment orders were duly considered before initiating action under Section 148. The High Court noted that the petitioner had the opportunity to file objections to the notice and that the assessing authority was required to pass a speaking order on these objections before proceeding with the assessment.

Issue 2: Transfer of case to Asstt. Commissioner, Income Tax, Circle 4 (1):
The case was transferred from Asstt. Commissioner, Income Tax-1 to Asstt. Commissioner, Income Tax, Circle 4 (1). The petitioner questioned this transfer, arguing that the reasons recorded for the notice did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. The High Court found that since the assessment orders were originally passed by Asstt. Commissioner, Income Tax-1, the transfer did not violate jurisdictional principles. The transfer was deemed to be in accordance with the assignments made by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, and no fresh order was required to be passed in this regard.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of various ranges under Section 120 (2) of the Act:
The department asserted that the jurisdiction of various ranges was governed by the order under Section 120 (2) of the Act. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had distributed the jurisdiction, indicating that the assessment of the petitioner, who was the Managing Director of multiple companies, fell within the purview of Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4 Agra. The High Court upheld this jurisdictional distribution and found that the transfer of the case was in line with the Chief Commissioner's directives.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file objections if no final order had been passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 148. The assessing authority was instructed to pass a speaking order on any objections filed before proceeding with the assessment for the concerned assessment year.