2024 (6) TMI 1065 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioner s interest in the subject matter of the assessment or investigation - Petitioner seeks direction for action on representation regarding transfer of files related to S.R.S. Mining from DCIT Non-Corporate Circle 2 to DCIT Central Circle 2 - assessment proceedings were concluded in respect of a partnership firm called M/s.S.R.S.Mining which was the assessee. He points out that the petitioner is a rank -third party who is not related to the assessee or the assessment proceedings in any manner. HELD THAT - The petitioner has approached this Court seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. From the averments in the affidavit it is unclear as to how the petitioner has any interest in the subject matter of the assessment or investigation. As correctly contended by learned senior standing counsel the petitioner appears to be complaining about M/s.S.R.S.Mining and its partners as also against a specific officer of the Income-Tax Department. None of these persons have been made parties to this writ petition. In these facts and circumstances I decline to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks direction for action on representation dated 05.09.2023 regarding transfer of files related to S.R.S. Mining from DCIT Non-Corporate Circle 2 to DCIT Central Circle 2.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for appropriate action on his representation dated 05.09.2023 regarding the transfer of files related to S.R.S. Mining from DCIT Non-Corporate Circle 2 to DCIT Central Circle 2. The petitioner contended that upon such transfer, DCIT Non-Corporate Circle 2 lost jurisdiction, leading to the petitioner lodging a complaint. The petitioner highlighted a communication transferring the files and a letter issued by Mr. K.G. Arun Raj without jurisdiction. The petitioner's complaint remained unaddressed despite providing supporting documents like Aadhar Card and confirming the complaint. The petitioner argued for entitlement to the relief claimed based on these grounds.

Analysis:
The respondent, represented by Mr. A.P. Srinivas, pointed out that assessment proceedings concerning a partnership firm, M/s. S.R.S. Mining, had concluded, with the petitioner being a third party unrelated to the firm or the assessment proceedings. The respondent argued that the petitioner lacked locus standi and failed to include M/s. S.R.S. Mining or its partners as respondents in the writ petition. The respondent contended that the writ petition should be rejected on these grounds. The petitioner, seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, failed to establish any interest in the assessment or investigation subject matter. The petitioner's grievances seemed directed towards M/s. S.R.S. Mining, its partners, and a specific Income-Tax Department officer, none of whom were party to the petition. Consequently, the court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner.

Analysis:
The High Court dismissed W.P. No. 13443 of 2024 without any order as to costs, citing the petitioner's lack of standing and failure to include relevant parties in the writ petition. The court emphasized that the petitioner's complaints were not addressed towards the proper parties involved in the assessment and investigation proceedings, leading to the denial of discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.