9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arty to respond to the same and satisfy the audi alterm pa rtem rule - The reasons set out by the Commissioner on 29 October 2012 in support of the impugned order dated 2 November 2012 should be treated as a show cause notice and the Petitioner would respond to the same - Decided against assessee. - Writ Petition (L) No. 1843 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 2456 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 2459 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2014 - Mohit S. Shah, C.J. And M. S. Sanklecha,JJ. For the Petitioners : Ms. A. Vissanji and Mr. S. J. Mehta For the Respondent : Mr. A. R. Malhotra ORDER PC : 1. At the request of the counsel for the parties all the three petitions are being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. As the three peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companies to explain why the business loss claimed by the petitioner should not be disallowed. This was on the ground that the loss appears to have been claimed merely on the basis of accommodation entries provided by Jitendra Salecha and were not genuine. The summons was replied to by Priyakant Amin by pointing out that Hasmukhray Amin who conducts the day to day business of the Petitioner company will alone be able to respond to the queries raised. 6. Thereafter on 1 August 2012 a notice was issued to the Petitioner, inter alia, informing the Petitioner that it is proposed to centralize the Petitioner's assessment proceedings from Mumbai to Bangalore for the purposes of proper investigation and administrative convenience. For the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the above ground. 9. As against this, Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for Revenue submits that the Petitioner had knowledge that the entire proceedings were with regard to accommodation entries made available to the Petitioner company by one Jitendra Salecha. Besides not responding to the summons dated 27 July 2011 was a fact which was within the knowledge of the Petitioner. In these circumstances, he states that the impugned order calls for no interference. Therefore, it is the case of the Revenue that no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter for fresh hearing. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. Although an assessee can have no right to be assessed to tax by a particular officer, yet a transfer of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tural justice would require that the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to explain whether not responding to summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Act is sufficient reason to transfer the petitioner's assessment from Mumbai to Bangalore. The Commissioner of Income Tax in the order passed under Section 127 of the Act is required to deal with the objections of the assessee. 11. In the above view, we set aside the common impugned order dated 2 November 2012 transferring the petitioner's proceedings from Mumbai to Bangalore. However, we direct that the reasons set out by the Commissioner on 29 October 2012 in support of the impugned order dated 2 November 2012 should be treated as a show cause notice and the Petitioner would resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
