Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (10) TMI 289

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 012, the respondent No.1 has in exercise of his powers under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") has transferred the petitioner's case i.e. all pending proceedings under the Act w.e.f. 27 December 2012 to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (Respondent No.3) from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (Respondent No.2.). 2 Briefly, the facts are that petitioner No.1 admittedly belongs to the Sahara Group of Companies. The petitioner No.1 is engaged in the Hospitality business owning and operating an hotel in the name and style of Sahara Star at Mumbai and also trading in petroleum products in Mumbai. Since 2003 onwards, the petitioner is being assessed to Income Tax at Mumbai. 3 On 12 September 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... financial transactions and investments inter se between the petitioner and other Companies belonging to the Sahara Group. The petitioner No.1 pointed out that there were no large scale financial transactions and investments of the assessee with other entities of the Sahara Group i.e. neither the petitioner No.1 has invested large amounts with the Companies in the Sahara Group or viceaversa, save and except, some amount being invested by the petitioner No.1 in Mutual Funds managed by an entity belonging to the Sahara Group. Further, it was pointed out that no loans were either taken or given by the petitioner No.1 from/to various entities belongings to the Sahara Group of Companies. Consequently, it was the petitioner No.1's submission that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Besides, no loans were taken and/or given to/by the petitioners to any of the entities in the Sahara Group of Companies. Nor has the petitioner any investments in the entities belonging to Sahara Group, save and except some amount being invested in the Sahara Mutual Fund managed by an entity in the Sahara Group of Companies; and (c) The transfer of the Assessment Proceedings to New Delhi would cause immense prejudice to the petitioner. This is for the reason that their operations are localized in Mumbai, their personnel/ Officers are also residing and working in Mumbai. In view of the above, it is submitted that the transfer as proposed is not warranted and the impugned order ought to be set aside. 9 As against the above, Mr, Arvind Pi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed that the revenue earned from related party transactions for the financial years 200708 to 201112 were substantial. It must be appreciated that while exercising its power of transferring proceedings under Section 127(2) of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax has exercised the discretionary power vested in him to transfer the case from one Assessment Officer to another. Section 127 of the Act itself does not circumscribe/limit the power of a Commissioner of Income Tax to transfer Assessment Proceedings from one Assessing Officer to another but has left it to the judgment of the Commissioner of Income Tax to exercise his discretion in a reasonable manner. To ensure that the Commissioner of Income Tax exercises his discretion in a just a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the order dated 19 March 2013, we find that the petitioner No.1 received a notice on 18 January 2013 under Section 142 (1)of the Act from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. Further, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner No.1 on 30 January 2013 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. The petitioner admittedly participated in proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi leading to the order dated 19 March 2013. The petitioner No.1 has, therefore, submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at New Delhi. The petitioners have not pointed out any protest by them at New Delhi. This is an additional reason why we see no reason to entertain this petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates