2016 (8) TMI 369 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer of case of the petitioner-assessee from Kolkata to Trivandrum - Held that - The petitioner did not have any business or residence at Kolkata at the relevant point of time which is under consideration. In fact, the petitioner had applied for transfer of his file from Kolkata on such ground. The authorities have acted on the basis of the fact that, the petitioner does not have a residence or any business at Kolkata. The only business that the petitioner was connected with at the relevant point of time, to the knowledge of the department, was located within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at Trivandrum. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were transferred for the relevant years to such Officer at Trivandrum. The petitioner had in any event applied for transfer. The request for transfer made by the petitioner coupled with the fact that, the petitioner did not have any residence or business within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at Kolkata, does not visit the action of the department with any illegalities so as to warrant an interference by a Writ Court.

Issues:
1. Transfer of assessment case from Kolkata to Trivandrum.
2. Jurisdiction of the assessment proceedings.
3. Validity of the transfer order.
4. Lack of notice and opportunity of being heard before the transfer order.
5. Comparison with Wealth Tax proceedings.
6. Consideration of transfer request by the petitioner.
7. Connection of the petitioner's business with Trivandrum.

Transfer of assessment case from Kolkata to Trivandrum:
The petitioner challenged an order transferring their assessment case from Kolkata to Trivandrum. The petitioner, not having any establishment or residence in Kolkata, applied for the transfer, which was initially transferred to Varanasi and then back to Kolkata. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had previously accepted that the transfer to Varanasi was incorrect.

Jurisdiction of the assessment proceedings:
The petitioner's lack of business or residence in Kolkata at the relevant time was a crucial factor. The authorities considered this fact and transferred the assessment proceedings to Trivandrum, where the petitioner was a Director of a company with business operations. The decision was made based on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at Trivandrum.

Validity of the transfer order:
The petitioner argued that the transfer order dated April 20, 1990, lacked a prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, making it invalid. The petitioner's advocate referenced Wealth Tax proceedings and previous Tribunal decisions regarding transfer orders to support the claim that the order should be set aside.

Lack of notice and opportunity of being heard before the transfer order:
The petitioner's contention that the transfer order was issued without notice or a chance to present their case was a significant point of dispute. The absence of a pre-transfer hearing was highlighted as a violation of procedural fairness.

Comparison with Wealth Tax proceedings:
The petitioner's advocate drew parallels with Wealth Tax proceedings to argue against the validity of the transfer order. Similar views taken in the context of assessment transfers were presented as supporting evidence for setting aside the impugned order.

Consideration of transfer request by the petitioner:
The petitioner's request for transfer, coupled with the lack of business or residence in Kolkata, was a key consideration. The petitioner's proactive approach in seeking the transfer was acknowledged, along with the absence of any legal irregularities in the department's actions.

Connection of the petitioner's business with Trivandrum:
The petitioner's association with a company conducting business in Trivandrum was a pivotal factor in justifying the transfer of assessment proceedings to Trivandrum. The jurisdictional relevance of the petitioner's business activities played a crucial role in the court's decision.

In conclusion, the court found no legal basis to interfere with the transfer of assessment proceedings from Kolkata to Trivandrum, considering the petitioner's lack of business or residence in Kolkata and the jurisdictional connection with Trivandrum. The writ petition was dismissed, emphasizing the absence of merit in the petitioner's claims.

← Previous Next →