9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.08.2023, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the A.O. under Sec. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) both dated 30.11.2018 for the assessment year(s) 2011-12 2012-13. As a common issue, i.e. validity of jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. for framing the impugned assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. 2. I shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 310/RPR/2023 for assessment year 2011-12 wherein the impugned order has been assailed on the following grounds of appeal: 1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without fulfilling all necessary conditions stipulated under the Act is illegal and without jurisdiction. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 30, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion without any valid transfer of the case to him from ITO-1(4), Bhilai. The Ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee was transferred by ITO-1(4), Bhilai to ITO-2(1), Bhilai merely on the basis of a letter dated 11.04.2018 (copy placed on record) without there being any order of transfer as was mandatorily required u/s. 127(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR had drawn my attention to the aforesaid letter dated 11.04.2018. Based on the aforesaid facts, the Ld. AR submitted that as the A.O., i.e. ITO-2(1), Bhilai had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction and framed the assessment in absence of any order of transfer of the case from ITO-1(4), Bhilai; therefore, the assessment order so passed by him cannot be sustained and was liable to be struck down on the said count itself. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') had relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. As the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O, i.e. ITO-2(1), Bhilai who had framed the assessment was challenged, therefore, the Ld. DR sought some time for obtaining the report of the A.O. on the aforesaid issue. 8. The Ld. D.R had on the next date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (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 reissue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the concerned authority, viz. Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. It is further provided in sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the Act that wherever it is possible to do so the appropriate authority shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter to the assessee. Although sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Act dispenses with the requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of being beard to the assessee in a case where the transfer of case 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, but it does not dispenses with the statutory requirement of recording of the reasons for doing so by the concerned authority. As such, in the case before me, where jurisdiction over the case of the assessee had been transferred to ITO-2(1), Bhilai from ITO-1(4), Bhilai, i.e. within the same city, though no requirement of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an income tax file to another officer and whether an order is required to be passed. In order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions in section 127 of the Act which is as under : 127.(1) The Director General or Chief 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 Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner - (a) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions it is clear that the Commissioner of Income Tax is not required to pass any order transferring the case from/to any Assessing Officer(s) if the offices of all such officers are situated in the same city, locality or place. (Emphasis supplied). It is evident that the respondent No. 2 had sought to justify his action by stating that the jurisdiction automatically gets vested with the jurisdictional officer and no order under section 127 is required to be passed. In my view, the letter/notice dated 21st October, 2009 is patently illegal since it has been held in this judgement that in case of transfer within the same city, locality or place although the opportunity of hearing as postulated in section 127(1) and (2) has been dispensed with, other statutory formalities which includes issuing an order are required to be complied with. Similarly transfer of files for the assessment years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and the earlier years as intimated in the letter/notice dated 30th July, 2009 issued by the respondent No. 1 is also bad in law. The argument of the respondents that in case of intra city transfer no order is required to be passed, cannot be accepted in view of the settled posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
