9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his issue before the appellate authority as one of the grounds of challenge to the assessment order, this issue need not be decided in this Writ Petition in the light of the prayer sought for. The present Writ Petitions are only an attempt to thwart the assessment proceedings, especially when, the assessment beyond 31.03.2016, would become time barred. The Assessing Officer has concluded the hearing on 18.03.2016 and passed the assessment order on 30.03.2016, which is subject matter of challenge before the appellate authority. Therefore, it is one more reason to reject the relief sought for in this Writ Petitions. There was no prohibitory order prohibiting the department from proceeding further in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the order of attachment was passed in a hurried manner or for certain other collateral purpose. Further, the third respondent was functioning as a Deputy Director of Income Investigation for the period from 17.06.2013 to 18.07.2014 and thereafter, he has been transferred and posted as a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate circle-6(2), Chennai. The assessment proceedings were carried on by the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer or the Assessing Officers to whom, it is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax. Subsection (3) states that nothing in Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from an Assessing Officer to any other Assessing Officers situated in the same city or locality and in terms of sub-section (4), transfer can be made at any stage and shall not render necessary the reissue of any notice. 4. In the case of Autofin Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 1977 (106) ITR 638, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the assessee could move the Commissioner or the Board for transfer of his case and there is no reason as to why the power should be exercised only suo-moto and not on the application of the assessee. The said decision was relied upon by this Court in the case of Ms.D.V.Mercy Anr., vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I (2), Thanjavur Ors., in W.P. No.1576 of 2014, dated 14.10.2014. Thus, in terms of the aforementioned decisions, the assessee could als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said P.R.Balakrishnan is not traceable and this is evident from the other orders passed by this Court in collateral proceedings at the instance of the petitioner Sri.D.Ramgopal and one Sri.R.Viswanathan and the Police authorities filed a counter affidavit stating that his whereabouts or not known, apart from that the Tahsildar as well as the Village Administrative Officer have certified that there is no such person residing in the said village area and inspite of producing all these records, the first respondent has been harassing the petitioner to produce the said P.R.Balakrishnan for inquiry, which is virtually impossible. Apart from that, the learned counsel submitted that the first respondent discarded the documents produced by the petitioner and uttered certain derogative remarks in local Tamil slang and therefore, taking into consideration all the factual circumstances, the case ought to be transferred to some other officer by the third respondent. 7. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent pointed out that sofar as the petitioner in W.P.No.11226 of 2016 is concerned even at the time when the Writ Petition was filed, the order of assessment had already been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the petitioners having received the copies of the assessment orders and filed appeals against such orders, the question of issuing a direction to transfer the case cannot be considered. 10. The second aspect which has to be seen is whether the petitioner's contention that the letter dated 19.02.2014, sent by P.R.Balakrishnan is a genuine document or a false and fabricated document, has to be examined at this juncture. On a perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority against the assessment order, the petitioner has raised a ground stating that the Assessing Officer erred in relying upon a bogus fax and letter which has no evidenciary value. Thus, the petitioners having raised this issue before the appellate authority as one of the grounds of challenge to the assessment order, this issue need not be decided in this Writ Petition in the light of the prayer sought for. 11. With regard to the allegations made by the petitioners against the first and second respondent, this Court after considering the affidavits filed by the Writ Petitioners, the counter affidavits filed by the respondents 2 and 3 as well as rejoinder affidavit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in, sent by speed post on 28.03.2016 and received by the petitioner on 30.03.2016. The re-direction of the postal cover is not at the instance of the respondent department, but at the point, where the cover reached the address initially given. Therefore, the petitioner is under the mistaken impression that the cover has been re-directed by the Department. Thus, it is clear that the statement made by the learned Standing counsel on instruction from the department before this Court on 28.03.2016, is correct. 14. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Writ Petitions were pending before this Court in a hurried manner, the first respondent has passed an order of attachment on 24.03.2016. It is seen from the record of the proceedings that this Court heard the matter on 28.03.2016 and passed the above mentioned order. From the said order, it is clear that there was no prohibitory order prohibiting the department from proceeding further in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the order of attachment was passed in a hurried manner or for certain other collateral purpose. Further, the third respondent was functioni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
