9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Act before the CIT(A). Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that it had not participated in the assessment proceedings, consequent to the impugned order order of transfer under Section 127(2) of the Act, cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that it is an admitted position between the parties that time to pass an Assessment Order under Section 153A of the Act would have normally expired on 31 March 2015. However, in view of the adinterim stay granted by the High Court of Chhattisgarh pending admission, the period between 3 March 2015 to 14 September 2016 would stand excluded. Decided against the assessee. - Writ Petition No. 2203 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And S. C. Gupte, JJ. Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. S. Sriharan i/b Mr. Balkrishna V. Jhaveri for the Petitioner Mr. N.C. Mohanty Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w Mr. N.A. Kazi for Respondent ORDER P. C. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges : (i) Order dated 9 December 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai under Section 127 of the Incometax Act, 1961 ( the Act), transferring the Petitioner' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A of the Act. Mr. Shridharan, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has filed an appeal from the order, imposing penalty before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. On instructions, he states that the order imposing penalty, has now been set aside in appeal. (vii) In the meantime, the Petitioner made representations dated 13th May, 2013 and 9th December, 2013 to Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). By its representations, the Petitioner sought centralization of the Petitioner's case alongwith its group companies to Mumbai. By order dated 23rd January, 2014, the CBDT rejected the representations, seeking centralization of cases at Mumbai. (viii)The impugned order dated 9 December 2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and the consequent proceedings taken by the Assessing Officer at Raipur were challenged by this Petitioner, by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Raipur. The Petition before the High Court of Chhattisgrah was filed 27th February, 2015. (ix) On 3 March 2015, the High Court of Chhattisgarh issued notices to the Respondent-Revenue for admission as well as for grant of interim reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till an order was passed by the Assessing Officer to file this Petition. Further, the Petitioner merely seeks a prospective transfer from Raipur to Mumbai. Therefore, all the proceedings taken at Raipur till date will not be in vain and proceedings can be continued from that stage at Mumbai. No prejudice is caused to the Revenue by this as the Officer who issued notices at Raipur has changed and new incumbents would be in the same position as Officers in Mumbai while deciding the case. It is submitted that laches / delay on the part of the Petitioner in moving this Petition is immaterial in the absence any prejudice being shown by the Revenue in view of the delay in filing this Petition. 6 The Petitioner has moved this Court seeking an extraordinary writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 9 December 2013 and 23 January 2014. It is a settled position of law that a person who seeks to exercise an extraordinary jurisdiction of the Writ Court should move the Writ Court expeditiously. The Apex Court in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board Vs. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108, in paragraphs 16 and 17 observed as under : 16. Thus, the doctri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27 February 2015. Although, adinterim stay was granted on 3 March, 2015, the Petition was not admitted by the High Court of Chhattisgrah. In fact, it was awaiting admission till 14 September 2016, when the Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. Thus, it cannot be said that the High Court of Chhatisgarh was satisfied with the reasons for delay stated by the Petitioner in its petition filed before the High Court of Chhatisgarh as it had no occasion to examine it. We have perused the copy of the petition filed by the Petitioner before the High Court of Chhatisgarh (as annexed to the Petition) wherein the only reason offered is that rectification application to the order dated 9 December 2013 was pending and representations made to the Commissioner of Income Tax were awaiting disposal. Mere filing of a rectification application and representation to the order dated 9 December 2013, which has since become effective, and when the Officer concerned is functus officio, will not by itself be an explanation sufficient to explain the delay. This delay has to be explained by the Petitioner moving the Court for exercise of Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
