2015 (7) TMI 372 - HC - Income Tax

Change in jurisdiction for the purpose of assessment - Held that - Merely because the parties were doing business in the normal course inter se, would not be a ground as such to transfer the assessment in the absence of any major financial nexus, as such, a ground would result in transferring other assessments of assessees who were doing business with the Narula Group of Companies (NCG). The reasoning, thus, which has been resorted to by respondent no. 1 cannot be held to be justified in any manner as the serious rights of the petitioner are involved as assessment is to be transferred for all purposes to a far off place to its detriment. In the absence of any independent finding recorded by the authorities below that the parties were as such linked in such a manner where there was major flow of finances from one side to the other, respondent no. 1 was not justified in transferring the proceedings and the said action cannot be held to be justified. In similar circumstances, a Single Bench of this Court in Rajesh Mahajan s case 2002 (7) TMI 94 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court has held that even if the transferee is one of the Directors, it was not a valid justification for the transfer of income tax proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order transferring the jurisdiction for assessment proceedings under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification for the transfer based on the alleged relationship and transactions between the petitioner and the Narula Group of Companies (NGC).
3. Adequacy of the reasons provided for the transfer and the opportunity of being heard.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Under Section 127(2)(a):
The petitioner challenged the order dated 08.10.2014, which transferred its jurisdiction for assessment proceedings from Circle-III, Ferozepur to the Central Circle, Amritsar. The transfer was justified by the respondent on the grounds of coordinated investigation and administrative convenience. The court examined whether the reasons provided for the transfer were rational and substantiated.

2. Justification for the Transfer Based on Alleged Relationship and Transactions:
The petitioner argued that it operated independently and had no significant relationship with NGC, despite some business transactions and the sale of land to NGC years prior. The reasons for the transfer included:
- Storage of 31,589 bags of paddy at NGC's premises.
- Statements from directors indicating no rent was paid for storage, suggesting close business relations.
- Historical sale of land from the petitioner to NGC.
- Business transactions involving the sale of rice bran to NGC.

The petitioner countered each reason, asserting normal business practices and denying any substantial connection warranting the transfer. The court noted that mere business transactions and the absence of rent agreements did not justify the conclusion that the entities were closely interlinked for tax evasion purposes.

3. Adequacy of Reasons and Opportunity of Being Heard:
The court emphasized that Section 127 of the Act requires giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioner was heard, but the court scrutinized whether the reasons for the transfer were valid and substantiated. The court found that:
- The reasons for the transfer lacked substantial evidence of a close nexus or tax evasion.
- The sale of land and storage of paddy bags were normal business activities and did not indicate a deeper connection.
- No significant financial transactions or shared directorships were found between the petitioner and NGC.

The court concluded that the reasons provided did not justify the transfer, as they did not demonstrate a significant financial or commercial nexus. The court referenced the Rajesh Mahajan case, highlighting the necessity for reasons to have a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved and not merely based on suspicion.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order dated 08.10.2014 and setting aside the subsequent notices issued by the respondents. The court ruled that the transfer of jurisdiction was unjustified due to the lack of substantial evidence of a close nexus between the petitioner and NGC.