2025 (1) TMI 288 - HC - Income Tax

Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer, Barotiwala road, Baddi to issue notice u/s 143(2) r/w Section 142 (1) and finalize the assessment of the appellant/petitioner without transferring his case file u/s 127 - transfer of jurisdiction from the Income Tax Officer at New Delhi to the Income Tax Officer at Baddi - Validity of best judgment assessments made u/s 144 in the absence of compliance with Section 127 - HELD THAT - The twin conditions to be complied with by the respondents for transferring the case of the appellant/petitioner from respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 are (i) the assessee should have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and (ii) the reasons for transfer should have been recorded. Admittedly, the above procedure has not at all been complied with and the only explanation offered for the same is that Section 127 was not attracted to the instant case as it was respondent No.5 alone, who had the authority to issue notices u/s 143(2) r/w Section 142 (1) of the Act. A valuable right of assessee is clearly involved in the matter, when he objected to jurisdiction of the assessing officer and transfer of his case, which obviously could not have been adjudicated upon without affording an opportunity of hearing and disclosing to him the reasons for not accepting his point of view. Accordingly, we find merit in both the appeal as well as writ petition. Consequently, the impugned order(s) framing the best judgment assessment for the respective assessment years are quashed and set aside. However, this judgment shall not prevent the respondents for initiating proceedings afresh by either resorting to Section 127 of the Act or by initiating or continuing the proceedings through respondent No.4.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

Whether the Income Tax Officer at Baddi had the jurisdiction to issue notices and finalize the assessment of the appellant/petitioner without transferring the case file under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the transfer of jurisdiction from the Income Tax Officer at New Delhi to the Income Tax Officer at Baddi was valid without complying with the procedural requirements of Section 127 of the Act.
Whether the best judgment assessments made under Section 144 of the Act were valid in the absence of compliance with Section 127.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer at Baddi

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court considered Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, which governs the transfer of cases between assessing officers. The provision mandates that the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and reasons for the transfer must be recorded.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized that the procedural requirements of Section 127 are mandatory. The respondents' argument that the Baddi officer had inherent jurisdiction was rejected as it bypassed the statutory procedure.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant/petitioner had been filing returns in New Delhi, and the jurisdiction was unilaterally changed to Baddi without following due process.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the transfer of jurisdiction was done without giving the appellant/petitioner a chance to be heard or recording reasons, thus violating Section 127.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents' claim that Section 127 was not applicable was dismissed as untenable. The court held that the procedural safeguards in Section 127 could not be ignored.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the jurisdictional transfer was invalid, and the notices and assessments made by the Baddi officer were not legally sustainable.

Issue 2: Validity of Best Judgment Assessments

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 144 of the Act allows for best judgment assessments, but procedural compliance with jurisdictional rules is a prerequisite.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reiterated the importance of jurisdictional compliance before invoking best judgment assessments. Non-compliance with Section 127 rendered subsequent actions void.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessments were conducted without addressing the jurisdictional challenge raised by the appellant/petitioner.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied Section 127 and found that the lack of procedural compliance invalidated the assessments.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents' argument that the assessments were valid despite jurisdictional issues was rejected.
Conclusions: The court quashed the best judgment assessments due to the jurisdictional error.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The twin conditions to be complied with by the respondents for transferring the case of the appellant/petitioner from respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 are: (i) the assessee should have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and (ii) the reasons for transfer should have been recorded."
Core Principles Established: The court reinforced the mandatory nature of procedural compliance under Section 127 for jurisdictional transfers in tax matters.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the impugned orders and assessments, allowing for fresh proceedings in compliance with statutory requirements.

The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in tax assessments, particularly concerning jurisdictional transfers. The decision highlights the necessity of providing taxpayers with a fair opportunity to contest jurisdictional changes and mandates the recording of reasons for such transfers, ensuring transparency and accountability in tax administration.

← Previous Next →