2024 (9) TMI 793 - HC - Income Tax

Transferring the petitioner s income tax jurisdiction from Shillong to Kolkata and had also further prayed for closure of her CGDS account - HELD THAT -Having heard learned counsel for the parties and as it appears from the submission of Mr. N. Dasgupta, the petitioner that transfer of jurisdiction is no longer resisted, the only issue that remains is with regard to the approval for closure of the CGDS account. Accordingly, it is directed that on production by the petitioner before the respondent authorities of all materials necessary to be taken into consideration on the application for closure of CGDS account, the respondents, shall thereafter within a period of four weeks thereof, decide on the matter and pass final orders. The commencement of the said proceedings however will be intimated to the petitioner by the concerned respondent within a period of three weeks from today.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mandamus for approval of closure of bank accounts and transfer of income tax jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to approve the closure of two bank accounts and to keep the transfer of income jurisdiction on hold. The petitioner had previously challenged an order transferring income tax jurisdiction and requested closure of the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme (CGDS) account. The court directed the petitioner to appear before authorities with necessary documents for a hearing. The petitioner agreed to appear, and the authorities were instructed to make a decision within four weeks from the appearance date.

The petitioner appeared before the authorities, who affirmed the previous order without addressing the closure of the CGDS account. The account was created from the sale of ancestral property to buy a new property under Section 54 of the Income-Tax Act. The closure request had been pending since 2019, and the petitioner faced hurdles due to non-approval from the Assessing Officer. The petitioner's counsel argued for closure before the transfer of jurisdiction, highlighting the delay and efforts made to resolve the issue.

The respondents contended that the petitioner's residency status and income tax returns indicated Kolkata as the permanent address. They argued that the delay in closure was due to the petitioner's inaccurate income reporting and late filing of Capital Gains details. The respondents stated that the transfer of jurisdiction was independent of the closure of the CGDS account as per Income-Tax Act provisions.

The petitioner's counsel agreed to the transfer of jurisdiction but emphasized the completion of CGDS account closure within a specified time frame. The court acknowledged the transfer of jurisdiction was no longer contested, focusing solely on the approval for CGDS account closure. It directed the authorities to decide on the closure application within four weeks of receiving all necessary documents from the petitioner, with an intimation to the petitioner within three weeks of the proceedings' commencement. The matter was disposed of based on these terms.