2016 (5) TMI 20 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer of jurisdiction - Held that - The reason for the order under Section 127(2) of the Act was stated to be for the purposes of the coordinated and effective investigation in Animal Husbandry Department Scam (AHD Scam) cases which arose in Patna. It is stated that the Petitioner was assisting in the filing of the income tax returns of the persons involved in the said cases. It is further stated that the assessments of those persons have also been centralized in Patna and those assessments have been completed. The orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the relevant assessment years in the cases pertaining to those other persons have been placed on record. Considering the passage of time during which the Petitioner has continued to be assessed in New Delhi and that there is an obvious change in circumstances, the order passed by the Respondent No.1 way back on 26/27th February, 2002 would obviously have to be reviewed. That order cannot possibly be said to hold good even today. In similar circumstances in Smt. Avijeeta Mohanty Casshyap v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2007 (6) TMI 181 - GAUHATI High Court the Gauhati High Court had come to form a similar opinion in relation to an order passed under Section 127 of the Act. - Transfer orders set aside.

Summary

Issues Involved: Challenge to order transferring jurisdiction under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges an order transferring jurisdiction under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act from one location to another. The order was passed in relation to the coordinated investigation in Animal Husbandry Department Scam cases in Patna. An interim stay on the implementation of the order has been in place for 14 years, during which the petitioner continued to be assessed in New Delhi by the Income Tax Officer.

2. The reason for the transfer of jurisdiction was to facilitate the investigation in the AHD Scam cases and centralize the assessments of individuals involved in those cases in Patna. The assessments of these individuals have been completed, and the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the relevant assessment years have been submitted as evidence.

3. The court noted the significant passage of time since the original order in 2002 and the change in circumstances. Citing a similar case, the court emphasized the need to review the situation and deemed the original order no longer valid. The court set aside the order dated February 26/27, 2002, and allowed the respondent to reassess and pass appropriate orders in compliance with the law.

4. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the challenged order and directing the respondent to reevaluate the situation and issue new orders as necessary.