9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 323 - HC - Income TaxRefund claim - post merger - transfer of jurisdiction - pending refunds of M/s VMSL with ACIT Delhi - using PAN of M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. with DCIT Mumbai to the bank account of M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. - HELD THAT - So far as the petitioner s right to make representation and be heard in the matter is concerned, we are of the view that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the petitioner, particularly in the light of the earlier proceedings, which were eventually dropped. The first show cause notice was issued to VMSL on 22.09.2017. VMSL responded to it on 09.10.2017. Thereafter, VMSL and Vodafone India Ltd. merged into Idea Cellular ltd. with appointed date as 31.08.2018. Another show cause notice under Section 127 was issued on 07.08.2019. The petitioner again responded to it on 21.08.2019. Thus, the petitioner has had several opportunities to respond to the proposed transfer of jurisdiction from Delhi to Mumbai. While passing the impugned order, the objections of the petitioner have been considered. The fact remains that the consent of the competent authorities, admittedly, has been obtained before passing of the impugned order. Therefore, the earlier refusal on 12.11.2018 is of no significance.
Issues:
1. Jurisdictional transfer of case and proceedings to Mumbai. 2. Objections raised by the petitioner regarding the transfer. 3. Consent of competent authority under Section 127(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Allegation of scuttling refund proceedings by transferring jurisdiction. 5. Adequacy of opportunities granted to the petitioner for representation. 6. Concerns regarding refund claims and their processing post-transfer. 7. Compliance with earlier court orders related to refund proceedings. Jurisdictional Transfer of Case and Proceedings to Mumbai: The petitioner challenged the order for transferring the case of M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. to the jurisdictional A.O. at Mumbai. The petitioner's submission was that the transfer was an attempt to hinder refund proceedings, as directed by the court in previous orders. The respondent argued that the transfer was justified and to the correct jurisdictional A.O. Objections Raised by the Petitioner and Consent of Competent Authority: The petitioner had raised objections to the proposed transfer, including the absence of consent from the competent authority as required under Section 127. The respondent contended that the objections were duly considered, and consent had been obtained before passing the impugned order, rendering earlier refusals irrelevant. Allegation of Scuttling Refund Proceedings: The petitioner alleged that the transfer of jurisdiction was aimed at obstructing refund proceedings. However, the court noted that directions had been issued in previous writ petitions to ensure that the transfer would not impede the implementation of court orders related to refunds. Adequacy of Opportunities for Representation: The court found that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities to respond to the proposed transfer, with multiple notices issued and objections considered. The court highlighted the timeline of events showing that the petitioner had ample chances to present their case. Concerns Regarding Refund Claims Post-Transfer: The court addressed the petitioner's apprehension regarding refund claims and clarified that the transfer of jurisdiction would not hinder the processing of refunds. Specific instructions were provided for issuing refunds in the name of M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. using their PAN to ensure a smoother process post-transfer. Compliance with Earlier Court Orders Related to Refund Proceedings: The court emphasized that the transfer of jurisdiction would not interfere with the execution of previous court orders concerning refund proceedings. It was made clear that the transfer would not impede the implementation of the court's directives. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions after considering all the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant legal provisions.
|
