9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act from Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad ; and (b) Four notices dated 23 July 2013 issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad, seeking to re-assess the petitioner for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are as under:- (i) The petitioner is a joint venture between one Patel Engineering Limited and K.N.R. Construction Limited, each having 50% share. The petitioner is assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP) under the Act at Mumbai since Assessment Year 2002-03. The petitioner is engaged in the business of development of infr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax; (v) On 31 August 2013, the Commissioner of Income Tax, by the impugned order, transferred the case of the petitioner from Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. The above impugned order of transfer, relies upon a search carried out by the revenue in respect of M/s. KNR Constructions Limited and others as a reason for the transfer of the petition; (vi) The order dated 31 August 2012 was served on the petitioner on 7 December 2012. The present petition was filed on 11 February 2013 in this Court. However, thereafter, the same was not moved before the Court. In the meantime, consequent to the impugned order dated 31 August 2012, the Deputy C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Loss Account of M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. The aforesaid fact was an important feature for continuing the case of the petitioner in Mumbai. The transfer to Hyderabad on mere ground that a search has been conducted in the case of one member of the AOP namely KNR Constructions is not sufficient for the purpose of transferring the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Hyderabad; and (c) The four impugned notices dated 23 July 2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax at Hyderabad, seeking to re-open the Assessment for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are all without jurisdiction. This is so as the transfer of petitioner's case from Mumbai to Hyderabad is itself bad in law. 4. As a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions. Before examining the merits of the impugned order dated 31 August 2012, we shall first examine the objection of the revenue that the petition ought not to be entertained on account of delay. In this case, the impugned order was passed on 31 August 2012. The petitioner states that the impugned order of transfer of its case from Mumbai to Hyderabad was received by it on 7 December 2012. The petitioner has filed the petition only on 11 February 2013 i.e. after about two months after the receipt of the impugned order. Further, even after filing the petition, the petitioner chose not to move the petition and seek any relief of interim or adinterim nature staying the implementation of transfer of its case by the impugned order dated 31 Augu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner has been explained only by stating that the impugned order dated 31 August 2012 under Section 127 of the Act was received only on 7 December 2012. Thereafter, the delay in filing a petition in the Court of over two months and the neglect in moving the Court to seek a stay on the impugned order dated 31 August 2012 is unexplained. 6. In the above view, we see no reason to entertain the present petition. The petitioner's conduct is indicative of it having accepted the order of transfer dated 31 August 2012. This is as the petition was filed only in February 2013 and thereafter not moving the Court for any interim relief. It is only when the Assessing Officer at Hyderabad issued four im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
