9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 770 - HC - Income TaxValidity of order u/s 127(1) and (2) Power to transfer cases Transfer of jurisdiction to file return - Held that - The authority was required to give a notice indicating the reasons for transferring the case from one area to another area here, no notice was ever given to the assessee u/s Section 127 of the Act nor any opportunity of hearing was provided and that the notice did not contain any reason for transfer - relying upon Bansal Sharevests Services Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another 2005 (4) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD High Court as per the order passed u/s 127, no reasons have been recorded for transferring the case from Ghaziabad to New Delhi - no opportunity of hearing was provided and consequently the order of Commissioner of Income Tax dated 9.3.2006 passed u/s 127 (2) of the Act, cannot be sustained and is quashed Thus, the DCIT, New Delhi, does not have any jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 147 of the Act - Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
Validity of order transferring jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing notice or opportunity to the assessee. Legality of notice issued under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2003-04 following the transfer of jurisdiction. Compliance with principles of natural justice in transferring the case from one area to another under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Analysis: The High Court addressed the first issue concerning the validity of the order transferring jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner challenged an order transferring their case from Ghaziabad to New Delhi, alleging that the order was passed without providing any notice or opportunity to be heard. The Court noted that the authority was required to give a notice with reasons for transferring the case and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The petitioner confirmed that no notice or opportunity was given, which was not refuted by the Income Tax Department. Citing relevant case law, the Court emphasized that the failure to record reasons and provide an opportunity of hearing rendered the order transferring the case unsustainable. Consequently, the Court quashed the order transferring jurisdiction from Ghaziabad to New Delhi. Regarding the second issue of the legality of the notice issued under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2003-04 following the transfer of jurisdiction, the Court found that since the order transferring jurisdiction was quashed due to lack of compliance with legal requirements, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, did not have the authority to issue the notice under Section 147. Consequently, the Court also quashed the notice issued under Section 147 for the assessment year 2003-04. Lastly, the Court analyzed the compliance with principles of natural justice in transferring the case from one area to another under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that no reasons were recorded for transferring the case from Ghaziabad to New Delhi, and no opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee. Therefore, the Court concluded that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax dated 9.3.2006 passed under Section 127 (2) of the Act was unsustainable and quashed. The lack of compliance with legal requirements in transferring the case necessitated the quashing of subsequent actions, including the notice issued under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.
|
