9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Commissioner of Income Tax, informing the petitioner that, pursuance to their Letter, dated 05.08.2016 intimating change in their register office and on receipt of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Mumbai, the petitioner's cases have been transferred out of the office of the respondent to the Income Tax Office - 9 (1) - 2, at Mumbai, and henceforth, the petitioner may contact the Assessing Officer at Mumbai for any queries. 3. The first set of Writ Petitions were filed on 10.07.2017, and when the matters came up for admission before this Court on 12.07.2017, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Refund Application filed by the petitioner for the relevant assessment years has been pending for almost a year, and no orders have been passed, in spite of repeated representations, therefore, the petitioner sought for a direction upon the respondent to dispose of the Refund Application within a time frame. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department accepted notice on behalf of the respondent, and sought time to get instructions in the matter. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 26.07.2017. When t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, 5th Floor, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002 and requested the respondent to use the said address for any communication with them. Thus, it is clear that, by communication, dated 03.08.2016 and 08.08.2016, the petitioner did not seek for transfer of file to Mumbai, rather they specifically requested the respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to send all the communications to the Chennai address. Therefore, the communications, dated 03.08.2016 and 08.08.2016 cannot be reckoned, as if, they are letters, requesting for change of assessment files to Mumbai. 7. Thus, it is a clear misreading of the petitioner's letters, that resulted in issuance of the impugned communication, by which, the petitioner's files have been transferred to the file of the Assessing Officer at Mumbai. This, in fact, would be sufficient to hold that the impugned communication dated 18.07.2017, is un-sustainable and issued with total non-application of mind. Nevertheless, since arguments were advanced by both sides on the merits of the matter, the Court proceeds to consider the same. 8. The petitioner's contention is that, the impugned communication, transferring the files from C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... followed in the case of (General Exporters Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) reported in (1998) 98 Taxman 257 (Madras). This is one more reason to hold that the order of transfer is not sustainable. 11. The Revenue seeks to sustain the order of transfer by referring to the instructions given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes No.1739, dated 19.12.1986. These instructions covers more than three category of cases and what has been pressed into service is as mentioned hereinbelow: "However, in the case of the assesses having large business income in many cases the change of residence/business places is manipulating with a view to avoid proper scrutiny. Taking into account the above facts, the Board have decided that in partial modification of Board's Instruction No.1555 dated 25.02.1984, as a result of the change of residence/business places of the assessees, the records of the assesses except those indicated below should automatically be transferred without getting the consent of the Income Tax Officer(I.T.O) to whom the case is proposed to be transferred." 12. On a perusal of the above instructions, it is evidently clear that the instructions would apply to cases, where, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai, had issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 143(2) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17 stating that the said assessment has been selected for scrutiny. The notice is dated 06.07.2017. Admittedly, the said notice was served on the petitioner only on 27.09.2017. The date, on which, the petitioner was required to file the return of income is printed in the said notice as ''28.07.2017'' which has been corrected manually as ''29.09.2017''. Thus, it appears that the Department itself was in a quandary what was the exact position of the petitioner' case. Furthermore, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that, all the files have not been transferred, and this required to be done in case of transfer, and this issue was pointed out in the decision referred by the Revenue in the case of (P.A.Ahammed Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax) (supra) wherein, by referring to Section 127, it was held that, when transfer is effected, the entire files will get transferred to the officer, to whom the file is ordered to be transferred. 15. Thus, the transfer of the files of the petitioner to Mumbai is completely flawed, and it is contrary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
