9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship firm and obtained permanent account number (PAN) with registered office at E 143, Sector 1 Dwarka, New Delhi. 3. In the year 1999, the appellant/petitioner established industrial undertaking/manufacturing unit/branch at Village Ranguwal, Bhartgarh Road Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh, and commenced its operations on 23.12.1999 manufacturing different types of cotton yarn, textiles etc. 4. On 13.03.2006, respondent No. 4 i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 24(1), New Delhi, assessed the income of the petitioner under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). Thereafter, on 14.09.2010 respondent No. 5, i.e. Income Tax Officer, Barotiwala Road, Baddi, issued notices under Section 143 (2) and 142(1) of the Act, initiating proceedings under Section 144 of the Act for the assessment year 2009-2010. 5. According to the appellant/petitioner, he had been regularly filing his income tax returns for the assessment years 1997- 1998 to 2012- 2013 at Delhi with respondent No 4. On 27.12.2011 Assessing officer without considering the written reply submitted by the respondents framed the best judgment/assessment under section 144 of the Act for the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs is PAN based and the principal place of business is Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. 11. The appellant/petitioner has controverted these allegations by filing rejoinder, wherein it has been averred that the first notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 14.09.2010. However, the same was duly replied by the petitioner and he had also submitted that the notice could not have been issued to the petitioner as the jurisdiction of the petitioner's PAN lies with respondent No.4. However, respondent No.5 went on to assess the petitioner without deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction against which, an appeal under Section 246 of the Act was filed and simultaneously, second appeal under Section 253 of the Act was also filed. 12. It has been reiterated that the jurisdiction of the appellant/petitioner has been transferred unilaterally. The appellant/petitioner had been filing his income tax returns at New Delhi mentioning his address of New Delhi on all the income tax returns and was assessed by respondent No.4 for the assessment year 2003-04 also as the jurisdiction was with respondent No.4. 13. As regards respondent No.4, separate reply has been filed on his behalf, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner] 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 [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 Commissioner or Commissioner] 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 jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was respondent No.5 alone, who had the authority to issue notices under Section 143(2) read with Section 142 (1) of the Act. 23. Such stand of the respondents is simply not tenable as it virtually amounts to putting the cart before the horse and additionally being judge in its own cause, reason being that the respondents would first contend that one of the respondents i.e. respondent No.4 did not have the jurisdiction, which stand is vetoed by respondent No.4 thereafter and this would form the basis of claiming that it was respondent No.5 alone, who had authority and jurisdiction to issue notice. Raising the question and thereafter answering by the respondents themselves cannot furnish a ground sufficient enough to come to conclusion that the provisions of Section 127 of the Act are not attracted in the instant case. This question had essentially to be decided by taking recourse to Section 127 of the Act and not otherwise. 24. After all, even the respondents cannot dispute that the assessing officer in this case has been changed and the records too stands transferred to him which could have only been done after complying with provisions of Section 127 of the Act and an order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be clear from the perusal of para- 10 thereof. 33. Furnishing of specific and intelligible reasons for the proposed transfer of the case is only a concomitant of the concept of reasonable opportunity enshrined in section 127 (1) and (2). Unless the assessee knows the precise reasons for the transfer, he would be handicapped in putting forth his objections effectively and in case the transfer of case is based on extraneous considerations then issuance of show cause notice becomes meaningless and is reduced to an idle formality. 26. A valuable right of assessee is clearly involved in the matter, when he objected to jurisdiction of the assessing officer and transfer of his case, which obviously could not have been adjudicated upon without affording an opportunity of hearing and disclosing to him the reasons for not accepting his point of view. 27. Accordingly, we find merit in both the appeal as well as writ petition. Consequently, the impugned order(s) framing the best judgment assessment for the respective assessment years are quashed and set aside. However, this judgment shall not prevent the respondents for initiating proceedings afresh by either resorting to Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
