2014 (1) TMI 32 - HC - Income Tax

Application for transfer of income tax records - Held that - The objection to the jurisdiction of the present Assessing Officer was only taken after survey proceedings commenced - The petitioner have not shown any prejudice would be caused to them in case, the case records are not transferred while the Commissioner in his order does record the prejudice likely to be caused to the revenue, if case records are transferred at this stage - The application for transfer was not bonafide - Decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting transfer of income tax records based on change of address and jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order rejecting the transfer of income tax records from the present Assessing Officer to an Officer having jurisdiction over the Chembur Area. The petitioner had informed the present Assessing Officer about a change of address to Chembur, Mumbai. The requests for transfer were made after a survey action under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act was carried out on the petitioner. The Assessing Officer cited ongoing survey proceedings and proceedings for the Assessment Year 2010-11 as reasons for rejecting the transfer request. The petitioner then approached the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 124(2) of the Act, questioning the jurisdiction of the present Assessing Officer and seeking a transfer of case papers to an Officer having jurisdiction over the Chembur area.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, in the impugned order, upheld the reasoning of the Assessing Officer for rejecting the transfer application. The Commissioner noted the large number of incriminating documents found during survey proceedings and the impending time bar for proceedings for Assessment Year 2010-11. It was deemed impossible for a new Officer to familiarize with all the documents and pass an appropriate order in a short time. The Commissioner also observed that the petitioner had not challenged the jurisdiction of the present Assessing Officer before the survey action and concluded that the transfer request seemed like an attempt to delay the investigation. The objection to the jurisdiction of the present Assessing Officer was raised only after the survey proceedings began, and the petitioner had not shown any prejudice that would be caused if the case records were not transferred.

Upon hearing the arguments of both parties, the court noted that the objection to the jurisdiction of the present Assessing Officer was raised after the survey proceedings had started. The petitioner's correspondence showed multiple addresses, including one at Vile Parle. The court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any prejudice that would result from not transferring the case records, while acknowledging the potential prejudice to the revenue if the records were transferred at that stage. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the application for transfer did not appear to be bonafide. No order was issued regarding costs.