9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Opposite Party No.1 in Bhubaneswar. While in terms of Section 120 of the Act, it might be possible for the CIT (IT), New Delhi to transfer jurisdiction from one Assessing Officer to another within his jurisdiction, there is no power u/s 120 of the IT Act to transfer jurisdiction to an AO who is not subordinate to the CIT (IT), Delhi. For that purpose, it is only Section 127(2)(a) of the IT Act that could apply. In similar circumstances, the Delhi High Court in an order in Louis Dreyfus Company Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation-2 [ 2022 (5) TMI 1505 - DELHI HIGH COURT] quashed the notices issued to the Petitioner by the DCIT in Mumbai when in fact that case was subject to the jurisdiction of the DCIT (IT) in New Delhi. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is not satisfied that the Department has been able to explain the legal basis for Opposite Party No.1 i.e. ACIT at Bhubaneswar exercising jurisdiction over the Petitioner and issuing the impugned notices under Section 148 - The Court, therefore, concludes that the impugned notices were issued by O.P. No.1 without jurisdiction and, therefore, are unsustainable in law. The impugned noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. It is pointed out that the Petitioner has not been made aware of or provided any order passed under Section 127 of the Act transferring the jurisdiction vis- -vis the Petitioner from Delhi to Bhubaneswar. 5. Referring to the reasons for reopening the assessment, as provided to the Petitioner by the Department, Mr. Jolly submitted that Opposite Party No.1 merely relied upon Form 15CA filed by Vedanta Limited, an Indian company having a unit in Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu, and the order passed under Section 201(1)/1A of the Act in the case of Vedanta Limited and concluded that VRL has business income arising in India in respect of the management consultancy fees paid to it by Vedanta Limited. He submitted that the proceedings initiated separately against Vedanta Limited in that regard have been challenged before the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras which by an order dated 26th April, 2021 in W.P. (C) No.8344 of 2021 stayed the recovery of the demand. He points out that the jurisdiction over the TAN of the Vedanta Limited lies with the CIT (IT), Chennai and Vedanta Limited itself is being assessed to tax on its PAN in New Delhi. It is accordingly submitted that even on thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds assigned to the DCIT (International Taxation) Circle-1 (1) (1), New Delhi. 9. During the course of hearing, Mr. R.S. Chimanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department handed over a sur-rejoinder dated 3rd February 2023 enclosing a copy of an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Phase- II, Kolkata on 15th November, 2014 under Section 120 of the IT Act and contended that in terms thereof, Opposite Party No.1 would have jurisdiction over the Petitioner since the place of activity/operation of the Petitioner is at Jharsuguda, Odisha . In response to this, it is pointed out by Mr. Jolly, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, that in the absence of an order under Section 127 of the Act, the jurisdiction vis- -vis the Petitioner could not have been transferred by the CIT (IT)-I, New Delhi to his counterpart in Kolkata and much less to Opposite Party No.1 in Bhubaneswar. 10. The above submissions have been considered. The key question in the present case is whether the Opposite Party No.1 can exercise jurisdiction over the Petitioner-VRL which is a non-resident company incorporated in UK? 11. At the outset, it requires t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner- (a) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners Principal Chief Commissioner 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 Chief 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 Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioner or Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
