9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 that, the petitioner had its activities located in Kolkata and the registered office of the petitioner was in Kolkata. The petitioner had objected to the transfer. He submits that, the Income-tax Authorities cannot consider Deoghar to be the principal place of business of the petitioner in view of the statements made before the Authority on December 18, 2012 as well as the averments made in the writ petition. The registered office of the petitioner is at Kolkata. All the decisions of the petitioner are made at Kolkata. It procures paddy from Burdwan. It transports such paddy to Deoghar for the purpose of processing. The major sales of the finished product are made in West Bengal. He contends that, no sale takes place in Jharkhand or at Deoghar. Therefore Deoghar cannot be construed to be the principal place of business so far as the petitioner is concerned. He refers to the order dated December 18, 2012 and submits that, the reasons for the transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 and other notices transferring the file for assessment to a different assessing officer is under challenge at the behest of the assessee. Two show-cause notices were issued prior to the impugned order. Both the two show-cause notices do not contain the reasons for the transfer. However, by a writing dated December 6, 2012, the department had put the petitioner on notice that the department was relying upon a survey report conducted under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act on February 9, 2011 and that, such survey report has suggested centralization of the case with Deoghar. The petitioner was invited to raise its objection thereto, if any. The petitioner was also put on notice that, in the event the petitioner does not raise any objection, it would be presumed that the petitioner has no objection for the transfer. The notice dated December 6, 2012 fixed December 13, 2012 as the date of hearing. On December 13, 2012 the authorised representative of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, - (a) where the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal 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 Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 matter and financial decision are taken at the registered office at Kolkata. It had objected to the transfer. However, subsequently, the revenue authorities had informed the petitioner by the writing dated December 6, 2012 that a survey under section 133A of the Act of 1961 had been carried out on February 9, 2011 and that there was suggestion for transfer in such survey. The petitioner was invited to place its objections, if any. It did not raise any objection. The petitioner did not seek the survey report referred to in the letter dated December 6, 2012 notwithstanding knowing that such survey is one of the basis of the desire to transfer. It was given an opportunity of hearing. The authorised representative of the petitioner had appeared at the hearing. The petitioner was heard. Its objections were noted, dealt with and negated by the impugned order. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that, the notice for transfer did not contain any reason. It cannot be said that there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
