TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letting all believe particularly, the Assessing Officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax at Hyderabad that the order of transfer dated 31 August 2012 under Section 127 of the Act from Mumbai to Hyderabad was acceptable to the petitioner - This led the Assessing Officer to exercise his jurisdiction - the delay in filing a petition in the Court of over two months and the neglect in moving the Court to seek a stay on the impugned order dated 31 August 2012 is unexplained. There is no reason to entertain the present petition - The petitioner's conduct is indicative of it having accepted the order of transfer dated 31 August 2012 - This is as the petition was filed only in February 2013 and thereafter not moving the Court for any interi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50% share. The petitioner is assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP) under the Act at Mumbai since Assessment Year 2002-03. The petitioner is engaged in the business of development of infrastructure facilities/ projects like construction of roads, highways etc; (ii) On 28 August 2012, the petitioner received a notice dated 22 August 2012 from the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. By the above notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause why the petitioner's assessment should not be centralized with Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax at Hyderabad for the purposes of better investigation, co-ordination and in public interests. The above notice fixed the personal hearing on 29 August 2012; (iii) On 29 August 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the same was not moved before the Court. In the meantime, consequent to the impugned order dated 31 August 2012, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad issued four notices dated 23 July 2013 under Section 148 of the Act, seeking to reassess the petition for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13. It is only thereafter, that the petitioner moved this petition before the Court and on 20 August 2013, this Court granted an ad-interim stay of the four impugned notices dated 23 July 2013. 3. Mr. J. D. Mistri, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the petition, submits as under:- (a) The impugned order dated 31 August 2012 passed under Section 127 of the Act has been passed in breach of principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer of petitioner's case from Mumbai to Hyderabad is itself bad in law. 4. As against the above, Mr. Pinto, learned Counsel appearing for the revenue in support of the impugned order dated 31 August 2012 passed under Section 127 of the Act and the four impugned notices dated 23 July 2013 issued under Section 148 of the Act, submits as under:- (a) It is submitted that the order of transfer was issued under Section 127 of the Act on 31 August 2012. The petitioner chose to file the present petition only in February 2013 and even thereafter, did not move this Court to seek any stay of transfer of case by order dated 31 August 2012. It was only on 20 August 2013 that the petitioner moved this Court and sought to amend the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entation of transfer of its case by the impugned order dated 31 August 2012. In fact, much after the transfer in 2012, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad issued the impugned notices dated 23 July 2013 under Section 148 of the Act, seeking to re-open the Assessment for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the petitioner moved a praecipe on 12 August 2013 and at its instance, the Court placed the matter on 20 August 2013. These notices dated 23 July 2013 for re-opening would have been issued after the Assessing Officer at Hyderabad had came to a reasonable belief that Income chargeable to tax has escaped assessments and recorded reasons for the same. Thus, the jurisdiction has already been exercised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
