2016 (8) TMI 370 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer of cases - extent and manner of hearing and reasons - Held that - Section 127 of the Act refers to suo motu jurisdiction, but it is settled law that such jurisdiction can be triggered either by an assessee or by the Revenue and the power is conferred to remedy any injustice and it is always open to bring to notice any error, illegality or injustice. On examining the impugned order, which was subject matter of the said case, it was held to be vitiated because of absence of hearing and recording of reasons. However, it was further held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down about the extent and manner of hearing and reasons to be recorded and all depends upon the facts and circumstances on each case. Therefore, the High Court of Bombay, though culled out the legal position, observed that there can be no hard and fast rule and the extent and manner of hearing and reasons depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In respect of other submissions, which would have an impact on the assessment to be made, this Court refrains from making any reference to the same and this Court does not propose to go into the factual contentions raised by the petitioners and the averments set out in this regard in the counter affidavits. Ultimately, while upholding the validity of the impugned orders, this Court grants liberty to the respondent to proceed in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notifications transferring the cases, after receipt of the objections, do not disclose as to why the objections raised by the petitioners did not find favour with the respondent. Under normal circumstances, this Court would have adjudicated this issue. But, by a lapse of time of more than 11 years, this Court is of the view that this question has become academic. That apart, the impugned proceedings are only notifications and these notifications are after an order, which came to be passed by the Authority concerned. Therefore, at this distance of time, this Court is not inclined to give any liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order, which had been passed by such Authority prior to the impugned notifications.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to transferring assessment jurisdiction to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Coimbatore.

Analysis:
The petitioners contested the transfer of their assessments, arguing that reasons were not provided as mandated by law. They relied on the Ajantha Industries case, emphasizing that recording and disclosing reasons are not mere formalities. The respondent defended the orders, stating that reasons were clearly stated in the notices and objections were considered. The court noted a significant delay in the case listing, highlighting the need to assess the correctness of the proceedings.

The court examined Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that transfer powers are for administrative convenience. The petitioners' main contention was the lack of notified reasons for the transfer. However, the court found that the notices did mention the reasons, albeit briefly, related to search and seizure operations. Referring to the Devidas case, the court discussed the right to a hearing against a reasoned order and the exclusion of natural justice principles in certain situations.

Further, the court referenced various cases to illustrate the importance of hearing and recording reasons in transfer cases. While refraining from delving into factual contentions, the court upheld the validity of the impugned orders, granting liberty to the respondent to proceed lawfully. The petitioners raised concerns about the lack of explanation for rejecting their objections, but the court deemed the issue academic due to the extended time lapse.

Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petitions without costs, closing the related Writ Miscellaneous Petitions.