Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 970 - HC - Income TaxTransfer of case u/s 127 - whether procedure prescribed under Section 127(2) was not complied ? - transfer assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Kochi - agreement between the two designated higher authorities - proposal for centralization of assessment in a group of cases - HELD THAT:- There has to be a positive meeting of mind to the suggested proposed course of action. The dictionary meaning of the expression ‘agreement’ is harmony in opinion or feeling; a manifestation of mutual assent by two or more persons. Therefore, furnishing of a proposal, in our view, may not amount to an agreement of the designated higher authorities as contemplated under clause (a) to sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Act. In Noorul Islam Educational Trust Vs. CIT [2016 (10) TMI 982 - SUPREME COURT] Supreme Court considered transfer of assessment jurisdiction under Section 127(2)(a). Supreme Court held that agreement between the two designated higher authorities was necessary. Revenue took the stand that there was no disagreement between the two Commissioners. Rejecting this stand, Supreme Court held that absence of disagreement cannot tantamount to agreement as visualized under Section 127(2)(a) of the Act which contemplates a positive state of mind of the two jurisdictional Commissioners. Before passing the impugned order u/s 127(2) on 09.08.2019, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Hearing was granted after the said decision was taken culminating in the second order dated 09.12.2019. That apart, from the second order it is discernible that there was no agreement between the two jurisdictional Principal Commissioners to transfer assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Kochi. Evidently, the procedure prescribed under Section 127(2)(a) of the Act has not been complied with. It is trite that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that particular manner. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that the decision making process leading to passing of the two impugned orders has been vitiated for non-compliance to the statutory procedural requirements. Consequently, both the orders dated 09.08.2019 and 09.12.2019 passed by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained; those are hereby set aside and quashed. Since we have set aside the above two orders, all consequential actions shall also stand interfered with.
|