9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) without passing a speaking order. He has not given any reason for confirming the same, which is not proper. Therefore, it is appropriate to remit the issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. Accordingly, we remit the issues relating to addition on account of sale of milk, rental receipts and interest income to the file of the AO for fresh consideration after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 129 to 132/Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri K. Meenakshisundaram, ITP For The Respondent : Shri A.B.Koli, JCIT ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) dated 30.10.2014 for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10. Since, the issues involved in these appeals are common, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The first common legal issue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner:- (a) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted, the construction for which Mr.Jain contends is a reasonably possible construction. In fact, if the words used in the proviso are literally read, Mr.Jain would be justified in contending that the requirement that reasons must be recorded applies even to cases falling under it. On the other hand, if the obvious object of the proviso is taken into account and the relevant previous background is borne in mind, it would also seem reasonable to hold that in regard to cases falling under the proviso, an opportunity need not be given to the assessee, and the consequential need to record reasons for the transfer is also unnecessary, and this view is plainly consistent with the scheme of the provision and the true intent of its requirements. We would accordingly hold that the impugned orders cannot be challenged on the ground that the Board has not recorded reasons in directing the transfer of the cases pending against the assessee from one Income-tax Officer to another in the same locality. (emphasis supplied) Therefore, the case of the petitioner that the opportunity should be given and a reasoned order should be passed has no legal basis. In this case, the transfer would fall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourable Supreme Court referred to above, the contention of the petitioner, clearly has no legal basis. It clearly establishes the fact that the writ petition is filed with mala fide intention of protracting the assessment proceedings by indulging in meaningless litigation, knowing fully well that the decision of the Five Judges Bench of the Honourable Apex Court does not support the petitioner's plea. In fact, the case of Kashiram Aggarwalla case (AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1028) is referred to in the Honourable Apex Court decision of Ajantha Industries reported in (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC), relied upon by the petitioner's counsel. Kashiram Aggarwalla case was held to be inapplicable to the facts of the Ajantha Industries case by the Honourable Supreme Court. The learned counsel for petitioner when asked as to why he is not referring to the decision of the Five Judges Bench reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1028 which is to the point in issue, he pleaded that he does not rely on it. This only shows the deliberate intention to misinterpret the law for protracting the assessment proceeding under some pretext. 15. One other contention raised by the learned Counsel for the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
