9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; It is being run by a Committee of Trustees. The petitioner is having separate income tax account. The first respondent has transferred the case of the petitioner from the file of second respondent to the file of third respondent. The reason assigned by the first respondent for making such transfer is not valid. The first respondent ought to have transferred the case of the petitioner to any Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax within Tamil Nadu. The first respondent ought to have considered necessity of retaining assessment of the petitioner in Tamil Nadu. The first respondent without considering the contentions putforth on the side of the petitioner has erroneously passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 and thereby made such transfer. Under the said circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 4.In the counter filed on the side of the respondents, it is averred that as per Section 127(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the first respondent after observing due formalities is having power to transfer cases from one place to another. Under the said circumstances for the reasons ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. (3)Nothing in sub-section(1) or sub-section(2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) and the offices of all such officers are situated in the same city, locality or place. (4)The transfer of a case under sub-section(1) or sub-section(2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the re- issue of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is transferred. Explanation.- In Section 120 and this section, the word ?case?, in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income tax cases are different and no circumstance arises to make such transfer from the file of second respondent to the file of third respondent and under the said circumstances the learned Single Judge has allowed W.P(MD)No.60 of 2009 after holding that the transfer is not justified and therefore the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. 12.As pointed out earlier, the order in question has to be passed by the first respondent/first appellant only by way of invoking the provision of Section 127(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the said provision, the first respondent/first appellant is having power of transfer after giving reasonable opportunity to the particular assessee. Further the entire Section 127 does not say any specific reason. 13.The contentions putforth on the side of the appellants/respondents are that the Chairman of the petitioner/respondent in individual capacity is owning several institutions in Kerala State and during search Rs. 70,17,400/- of undisclosed income has been detected and only for having coordinate enquiry and investigation, the transfer in question has been made. 14.The admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellants/respondents is that for having coordinate enquiry and investigation in respect of cases of Noorul Islam Group and in individual capacity of A.P.Majeed Khan, the transfer in question has been made. 20.It is not the contention of the respondent/petitioner that its Chairman in individual capacity is not running separate educational institutions. Further in the order in question, it has been clearly stated that an undisclosed income of Rs. 70,17,400/- has been detected from his case. 21.The main objection raised on the side of the respondent/petitioner is that the institutions being run in individual capacity by the said A.P.Majeed Khan, are not having connection with the institutions, being run by the respondent trust. 22.It is true that the respondent/petitioner is having separate educational institutions in and around Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District. It is also true that the Chairman of the respondent/ petitioner is running several educational institutions in Kerala in his individual capacity. But no-one can say that the said A.P.Majeed Khan is not getting income from the institutions which are being run by the trust as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
