Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 821 - HC - Income TaxIssues involved: The issues involved in this case are the validity of notices issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, the source of seized money, jurisdictional authority for assessment proceedings, and the legality of the order transferring the case. Validity of Notices under Section 153A: The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged the notices issued under Section 153A for the Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2020-21. The petitioner also contested the assessment orders passed under Section 144 read with Section 153A for the same years. The petitioner impugned the notices issued under Section 142(1)/143(2) in relation to the years for which Section 153A notices were issued. The petitioner raised objections regarding the validity and legality of these notices and assessment orders. Source of Seized Money: A sum of Rs. 1,46,45,000/- was seized from the petitioner and another individual by the Customs Preventive Division Kannur. The money was seized following a joint inspection of a vehicle in which they were traveling. The petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the source of the seized money. The money was subsequently handed over to the Income Tax Department under Section 132A of the IT Act. The petitioner's statements and explanations regarding the source of the money, including details of transactions and individuals involved, were scrutinized and found to be lacking in supporting evidence. Jurisdictional Authority for Assessment Proceedings: The petitioner contended that the jurisdictional Assessing Authority should be the 2nd respondent at Sangli, challenging the transfer of jurisdiction to the 1st respondent at Kozhikode. The transfer of assessment proceedings from Sangli to Kozhikode was questioned on the grounds of lack of mandatory notice and hearing as required by Section 127(2) of the IT Act. The petitioner argued that the transfer order lacked clarity on reasons and did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN), rendering it illegal. Legality of Transfer Order: After receiving a centralization proposal, the petitioner was given an opportunity to object to the proposed transfer of his case to Kozhikode. Despite notice delivery on the e-filing portal and registered email, the petitioner did not respond. The order transferring the proceedings to Kozhikode was passed in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner's contention regarding non-receipt of the notice was dismissed based on the evidence of notice delivery. The court found that valid reasons existed for transferring the proceedings to Kozhikode, given the petitioner's residence and business location within that jurisdiction. Conclusion: The court found no error in the proceedings as argued by the petitioner's counsel and dismissed the writ petition. However, the petitioner was advised to pursue appropriate remedies available under the Income Tax Act if aggrieved by the assessment orders. The court also directed that time spent on the petition would be excluded when computing the limitation period for filing an appeal against the assessment orders.
|