9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... da Sen, Mr. Dipak Dey, Mr. Dipanjan Dey, Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal, Advs. for the petitioner Mrs. Smita Das De, Adv. for the respondents ORDER The Court : The petitioner assails a decision dated December 18, 2012 passed under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 transferring the jurisdiction from Kolkata to Deoghar, Jharkhand. Learned advocate for the petitioner refers to the two showcause notices issued by the Authorities under Section 127 of the Act of 1961 and submits that none of those two notices give any reason for the transfer. He fairly refers to a subsequent notice dated December 6, 2012 of the department, and submits that, although the department for the first time informs the petitioner that there is a survey conducted the survey report itself was not made over to the petitioner. He submits that, by the time the letter dated December 6, 2012 was issued by the department, the petitioner had already filed its reply to the two show-cause notices. The authorised representative was present at the hearing dated December 13, 2012 pursuant to the notice dated December 6, 2012. In such hearing, the authorised representative of the petitioner had submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner submits that, the registered office of the company need not necessarily be the principal place of business. He refers to (1927) 2 ITC 304 (Allahabad) (Dina Nath Hemraj vs. Commissioner of Income-tax) and submits that, the nature of location of a principal place of business has to be adjudicated in the facts of a case. Learned advocate for the department submits that the petitioner was made aware of the survey conducted under Section 133A of the Act of 1961 by the letter dated December 6, 2012. The petitioner did not ask for a copy of such survey report. It had proceeded to attend the hearing. At the hearing no objection was raised about the survey report. The reasons given for the transfer are sufficient. She relies upon (2007) 294 ITR 147 (Cal) (Lords Distillery Ltd. Anr. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Ors.) and (2009) 178 Taxman 269 (Cal) (Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-III) in support of her contentions. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. An order under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 passed consequent to the letter dated December 6, 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not ask for the survey report prior to the hearing or even at the hearing. It did not raise any objections in spite of opportunity being given by the writing dated December 6, 2012. The revenue authorities have exercised powers under Section 127 of the Act of 1961 to pass the impugned order. Section 127 of the Act of 1961 is as follows : 127. Power to transfer cases.- (1) The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner 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, 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 Principal Director General or Dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The section requires the Commissioner to give the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to record the reasons for the transfer. Section 127 of the Act of 1961 does not prescribe any format of the notice. It requires the Commissioner to give the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing wherever it is possible to do so. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (supra) is of the view that, the assessee should be intimated about the reasons in a comprehensive manner in order to enable him to make an effective representation. On facts of that case, it had found the notice not to contain adequate reasons. Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd. (supra) on the facts of that case, had found sufficient reasons for transfer to have been given. Lords Distillery Ltd. (supra) on the facts obtaining in that case, is of the view that, the notice for transfer and the order of transfer does not contain any reason. Sufficiency of the reasons given for transfer will, therefore, depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the first two notices do not contain any reason for transfer. The petitioner had replied to one of those notices dates September 19, 2012 by claiming that its major policy mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
