2017 (3) TMI 39 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of assessment order - writ petition against the order of Transfer of case u/s 127 was pending - Jurisdiction - Held that - In the present case the department has alleged that, the principal place of business of the petitioner is at Deoghar. The deciding authority has found substance in such allegation and has proceeded to transfer the account. No material has been placed before the Writ Court to demonstrate that, the findings arrived at by the deciding authority in the impugned order dated December 18, 2012 is perverse. The writ petition was filed on April 22, 2013. It is pending since then. The petitioner did not accept the order of transfer and had allowed the assessing officer at Kolkata to proceed with the assessment year 2011-12. The order dated March 29, 2014 passed by the assessing officer at Kolkata does not negate the order of transfer carried under Section 127 of the Act of 1961. At best such order may be without jurisdiction. Thus no merit in the writ petition.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Adequacy of reasons provided in the show-cause notices for the transfer.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Transfer of Jurisdiction:
The petitioner challenged the decision dated December 18, 2012, which transferred jurisdiction from Kolkata to Deoghar, Jharkhand under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the transfer was based on a survey conducted under Section 133A of the Act on February 9, 2011, which suggested centralization of the case with Deoghar. The deciding authority found that the principal place of business of the petitioner was at Deoghar, and this factual finding was not demonstrated to be perverse by the petitioner based on the material available on record.

2. Adequacy of Reasons in Show-Cause Notices:
The petitioner argued that the two initial show-cause notices did not provide any reasons for the transfer. However, a subsequent notice dated December 6, 2012, informed the petitioner of the survey and the suggestion for transfer. The petitioner was invited to raise objections but did not ask for the survey report or raise any objections at the hearing. The court observed that the reasons for the transfer were provided in the notice dated December 6, 2012, and the impugned order, which included better coordination, effective investigation, and meaningful assessment. The court held that the reasons given were sufficient and that the petitioner was adequately informed.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were violated as the survey report was not provided, and the reasons for transfer were inadequate. The court found that the petitioner was informed of the survey and the proposed transfer through the notice dated December 6, 2012, and was given an opportunity to object. The petitioner did not request the survey report or raise objections at the hearing. The court concluded that there was no breach of natural justice as the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and the reasons for the transfer were adequately communicated.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The reasons for the transfer were deemed sufficient, and the principles of natural justice were upheld. The impugned order dated December 18, 2012, transferring jurisdiction to Deoghar was found to be valid and based on a plausible view taken by the authorities. The court emphasized that it was not called upon to substitute its decision as a Court of Appeal on re-appreciation of the materials placed before the decision-making authority.

← Previous Next →