9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e details given in column 4 to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Sambalpur as mentioned in column 5 with immediate effect and the order dtd.22.08.2016 which has subsequently been passed after providing an opportunity of being heard, affirming the decision dtd.29th January, 2015. 2. The brief fact of the case of the petitioners - assessees is that they having been assessed to income tax by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Rourkela, a notice U/s.153(c) of the Income Tax Act has been issued on 4.2.2015 to the petitioners for filing returns of income for the financial year 2007-08 to 2012-13, relevant to the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14, and another notice U/s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act was also issued calling for the return of the income for the financial year 2013-14, relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. The opposite party no.5 has intimated the petitioners that the jurisdiction of the cases has been transferred to opposite party no.5 by virtue of order passed U/s.127(2) of the Act by opposite party no.2 on 29.01.2015. After receiving the intimation, the petitioners had submitted to the opposite party no.5 that the copy of the order U/s.127(2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) had requested the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar, Orissa for giving necessary direction to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax for centralization of the cases by issue of notification U/s.127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Dr. Monu Pattanayak and groups who were being assessed by the Assessing Officers at Rourkela were falling under the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur and in terms of the letter of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) dtd.20.11.2014 the then Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur assigned the jurisdiction in the cases of Dr. Monu Pattnayak and four others to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Sambalpur vide order passed U/s.127 dtd.12.12.2014. It has been submitted that as the representative of the assessees had submitted that they had neither received copy of the order nor served with any notice before transfer of jurisdiction to Central Circle, Sambalpur and as such to rectify the technical defec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be said to be illegal for the reason that the assessees have to show what prejudice has been caused to them in case of non-issuance of notice prior to the decision taken by them, although opportunity has been provided to them after passing of the order on 29th January 2015 (Annexure-6) wherein their grievance has already been taken into consideration. He further submitted that merely on the ground of technicality, the decision taken by the authorities U/s.127 of the Act cannot be said to be vitiated in the eye of law, rather the assessees have to show as to what prejudice has been caused to them. He further submitted that even the provision U/s.127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stipulates that the opportunity of hearing is to be given wherever it is possible to do so and after recording the reasons for doing so, order has been passed taking into consideration this provision, and hence, there is no illegality in the same. He further submits that these writ petitions have been filed only to linger the matter and as such, the writ petitions are to be dismissed at the thresh-hold. 4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 after the date of such order or direction in respect of any year." The object of Section 127 of the Act is to empower the officers at the level ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing the case where the fact was that the cases were transferred from one Income Tax Officer to another whose offices are situated in the same locality and so, the point to consider was, what would be the effect of this proviso and while answering the issue, it has been laid down that nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to require any opportunity to be given, is worded in an emphatic form; and that fact has to be borne in mind in considering the effect of the proviso. Besides, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the recording of reasons prescribed by Section 127(1) would be appropriate where a transfer is being made otherwise than in the manner prescribed by the proviso, in such a case, normally, the assessee has to be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard; and the natural corollary of this requirement is that his objections to the transfer should be considered and reasons given why the transfer is made despite the objection of the assessee. In other words, the requirement as to the recording of reasons flows as a natural consequence and corollary of the requirement that a reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee. If, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Circle, Sambalpur as per the detail given in the said letter. 6. The petitioners as per the details given in order dtd.29.01.2015 have raised grievance by making an application before the Assessing Officer that the exercise taken U/s.127 of the I.T. Act, 1961 has been done without providing an opportunity of being heard and without supplying copy of the same, as would be evident from Annexurte-9 annexed to the writ petition. The concerned competent authority after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have not been provided with opportunity of being heard, has issued notice upon them to provide an opportunity of hearing. In view thereof, the representative of the petitioners - assessees had appeared and represented their cases, shown the reason not to transfer the cases from Rourkela to Sambalpur. The authorities after taking into consideration the submission and assigning the reason that decision has been taken to transfer the cases due to restructuring of Income Tax Department the cases have been transferred, being an administrative decision and as such, affirmed the decision taken by them on 29th January, 2015 which is under challenge in these writ pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfer the cases from Rourkela to Sambalpur and by this the petitioners - assessees are not going to be prejudiced in any way. We gathered from the record that the underlying object of the decision is equitable distribution of work and as such the order passed by the authorities is for administrative convenience. 9. We further find that the authorities have taken into consideration the grievance of the assessees that if they will feel any inconvenience, they may make request before the authority to hear their matter at Camp Court, Rourkela in this way also the interest of the petitioners - assessees have been protected. 10. So far as the ground that the authorities while passing order on 22nd August, 2016 have reviewed its own order, which they cannot do and as such, the said order is per se illegal, but we find no force in this argument for the reason that this cannot be said to be review of the order, since there is no change in the orders, i.e. in the orders dtd.29.1.2015 and 22.8.2016, rather the grievance of the petitioners has been looked into and reasons of transfer of the cases has been communicated to them by reitering the reasons. 11. Taking into consideration these asp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
