Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURTPower to retransfer the case u/s 127 – Instructions given by CBDT dated 31.01.2011 - Whether by virtue of the circular issued by the Board, dated 31.01.2011, fixing monetary limit for the officers to deal with the cases would oust the jurisdiction of the third respondent from exercising his power to transfer the assessment file of the petitioner from the second respondent to the first respondent in exercise of his power u/s 127 and the first respondent has jurisdiction to deal with the petitioner's assessment files and whether he has concurrent jurisdiction with that of the second respondent – Held that:- The proceedings dated 31.01.2011/08.04.2011 are instructions and are not orders or circulars - an instruction issued, cannot obliterate or deny the powers of the Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner to exercise power of transfer u/s 127 of the Act - The object of Section 127 of the Act is to empower the officers at the level of Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner with the power to transfer the Assessee's files from one or more Assessing Officers to any other Assessing Officers or Assessing Officers both being subordinate to him - the Commissioner has jurisdiction to transfer cases only within his jurisdiction whereas the power of the board is wider and it can transfer the cases from one jurisdiction of one Commissioner to another - The exercise of the power by the Commissioner does not exhaust the power of the transfer by the Board and the Board has independent power u/s 127 of the Act to transfer cases. Circular cannot mitigate against the power u/s 127 of the Act - on the basis of request received from the range head namely, Joint Commissioner Income Tax Circle-II, three cases including the petitioner's case, were transferred for effective and timely completion of scrutiny assessment proceedings, to make equitable distribution of workload – the respondent has completed earlier assessment proceedings of the petitioner for the AY 2009-10, in which certain directions has been given by the CIT(A)-I regarding recomputing derivative laws - there is no inconvenience caused to the assessee. Whether the instruction issued with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction issued by the Board from time to time is as sacrosanct and cannot be amended – Held that:- After the issuance of the instruction dated 31.01.2011, a subsequent instruction was given on 08.04.2011 - the monetary limit fixed in the instruction dated 31.01.2011, was not a rigid limit - This is manifest from the subsequent instruction dated 08.04.2011, which has given discretion to the Chief Commissioner and Director General to adjust the limits - the amended instruction dated 08.04.2011 itself, came to be issued, as Chief Commissioners have expressed the view that the limits fixed in the instruction dated 31.01.2011, if strictly enforced would lead to unequal distribution of workload between Assistant Commissioner and Income Tax Officers – the order of transfer of the file of the petitioner to the first respondent states that the proceedings has been passed for administrative convenience and apart from the petitioner's case, two other cases have also been transferred - The purpose for such transfer has been elucidated in the counter affidavit -there is no malafide alleged as against the first respondent, though a faint plea was raised at the time of arguments, but nevertheless not pursued, since there was no such averments in the affidavit nor the concerned officer was impleaded in his personal capacity – Decided against assessee.
|