Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 430 - HC - Income TaxValidity of order u/s 127 of the Act - Power to transfer cases - Transfer of Jurisdiction – Held that:- An order of transfer is passed for the purpose of assessment of income - It serves a larger purpose - Such an order has to be passed in public interest - The purpose of a Section 127 transfer is not to subject the petitioner to any tax liability, or even undergo any other obligation onerous or otherwise, but rather, only to direct that the regular assessment (as is carried out in the usual course of events) will be conducted by an AO other than the jurisdictional AO in order to ensure coordinated investigation. Revenue does not rely on the mere plea or assertion of coordinated investigation – Rather provided a context of the need for such a coordinate investigation, given the various limbs and branches of the entities involved in the Eldeco Group and their varying business connections - the very purpose of the Section 127 order in the case is to ensure than an orderly and coordinated investigation takes place while conducting the assessment of the various entities involved - the Supreme Court has also recognized that a Section 127 order does not by itself cause any prejudice to the assesee, and given that due deference must be granted to the Revenue in such matters, the limits of review of such orders is narrow. In Kashiram Agarwala v. Union of India, [1964 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME Court]. The assessee also has the opportunity to present his case, and be subject to a regular assessment, in front of the AO to whom jurisdiction has been transferred - No prejudice is caused by the mere fact of a Section 127 order, such that detailed reasons and specific grounds are required to be provided, as the petitioner today argues - the show-cause notice granted the petitioner in the case an opportunity of being heard - No oral representation was made by the petitioner on that date, nor was any request for another date made to the Commissioner - thus, the argument that no chance to effectively represent the case was provided has no merit – Decided against Assessee.
|