9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erials have been collected in Kolkata Central Circle, the 1st respondents, taking into consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner, decided to transfer the petitioner's case to the Central Circle, Kolkata. No substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents failed either to provide an opportunity or lack of sufficient materials to transfer the case from DCIT, Central Circle, Chennai to DCIT, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. Accordingly, the Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that although the registered office of the petitioner is situated at Chennai and they had not carried out any business activities at Kolkata, it will be appropriate to make the assessment through the Circle, where the incriminating materials have been seized based on the place of business of the Assessee, irrespective of situation of the registered office. This is what had taken place in the present case. If the contentions raised by the petitioner are accepted and allowed, the Chennai jurisdictional Assessing Officer has to finalize the assessment of the petitioner and in such event, certainly, it will be diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner. Therefore, in order to centralize the petitioner's case for effective and co-ordinated investigation they intended to transfer the case case to the Central Circle at Kolkata and thereby, called upon the petitioner to file the objections in writing if any, within 3 days. Subsequent to the said show cause notice, the petitioner had filed their reply on 21.12.2023. 4. Challenging the impugned Notification, the learned counsel for the petitioner would primarily contend that no opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 127 of the Act has been provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned Notification and thereby, violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned Notification is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and directly in contrary to provisions of Section 127 (1) of the Income Tax Act. In terms of Section 127(1) of the Act, the 1st respondent was supposed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing. But, in the present case, the same was not provided. 5. The learned counsel would also submit that the inconvenience ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice, dated 14.12.2023 was to the petitioner, wherein, the respondents have clearly narrated the circumstances by which, they intended to transfer the petitioner's case to DCIT Circle, Kolkata (Central Circle). Further, he would submit that in the show cause notice, the petitioner was requested to file their reply/objections, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Show Cause Notice. After taking into consideration the petitioner's reply only, the Notification was issued on 17.05.2024 under Section 127 (2) of the Act. Before issuing the Notification, all the contentions of the petitioner were considered by the 1st respondent. Therefore, he would submit that since the reply of the petitioner was considered, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. He would submit that it is only the transfer of case and with regard to seizure of the incriminating documents and the petitioner is well aware and those documents would affect the assessment of the petitioner. Further, in the show cause notice, all other details are narrated. Therefore, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been carrying out business operation of lottery and other activities within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct your assessment. It is necessary to see their effect together on the assessments. It can only be done after analyzing and investigating the documents found at different places together. As documents have been seized at different places, it is necessary that all the cases should be considered together at one place so that harmonious and co-ordinated investigation be undertaken to arrive at just assessment. 3. In the presence system of assessment procedure, the jurisdictional Assessing Officers would not be having jurisdiction over the cases where searches/surveys have been conducted and they are required to be centralized with the central charges. Even jurisdiction over other Assessments would not lie with jurisdictional Assessing Officer (other than Central International transaction) but only with the Faceless Assessing Officer who may be located at different places. In the said circumstances, the centralization would help the assessee in getting proper representation in person before Assessing Officer along with connected cases. 4. At present the PAN:AAACF5261H is lying with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle- 10(1), Chennai. Hence, it is proposed to ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a to present our case before the authorities there. It will also be very expensive for us to travel or hire a local lawyer to defend our case. The authorities in Coimbatore are well competent enough to undertake the assessment proceedings in our case which they have already been doing over the years. We, therefore, reiterate that centralization of our case at Kolkata shall devoid our right to fair and natural justice and therefore we request you not to transfer our file to Kolkata. If centralization of cases is required, we have no objection in having the case centralised with Central Circle, Chennai. 13. A perusal of the above reply filed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner expressed their personal difficulties citing the age factor, costs of litigation as well as they are having their registered office at Chennai, the availability of documents at Chennai, etc. Therefore, the petitioner raised objections for transferring the case to DCIT, Central Circle, Kolkata. 14. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is having their registered office at Chennai and no business activities were carried out at Kolkata, but upon search and seizure ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be difficult for him to complete the assessment in the absence of material documents, which were seized upon search by the Income Tax (Investigation) authorities of Kolkata Central Circle. Hence, it would be appropriate to transfer the petitioner's case to DCIT, Central Circle, Koltaka since the Income Tax authorities have traced out and seized number of incriminating documents which reveal the involvement of the petitioner in conducting the business operations of lottery and deciding the issue of evasion of taxes is within their jurisdiction. Therefore, the 1st respondent has rightly transferred the cases from Chennai jurisdiction to Kolkatta jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned Notification dated 08.02.2024. 19. In fact, Section 127 does not contain the grounds on which a case is to be transferred. It has been left to the discretion of the authority which has to be exercised by it in public interest. It is neither possible nor desirable to enumerate the grounds which can be said to be valid grounds for transfer u/s 127 of the Act. However, the paramount consideration for transfer should be the public interest and the power is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
