9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 15th February, 2008 under Section 132(1) of the Act at the business premises of the petitioner's firm at A-193, Ist Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi. Number of documents and cash was seized and a panchanama was prepared. It transpires that the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VIII issued an order dated 23rd September, 2008 under Section 127 of the Act transferring the case from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 23(1), New Delhi to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Circle Meerut. The petitioner contended that he was unaware of this order and came to know for the first time on 31st August, 2009 when he received a notice under Section 153A of the Act issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut intimating the petitioner that the income tax return for the assessment year 2008-09 has not been filed and directed the petitioner to show cause as to why action under Section 271F of the Act should not be initiated. The petitioner appeared and filed his objections contending that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case and that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the quashing of the order dated 23rd September, 2008 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi and the corrigendum dated 26th October, 2009 transferring the proceedings under Section 127 of the Act to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut. The petitioner has also prayed for the quashing of the notice under Section 153A of the Act dated 30th October, 2009 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08 and for quashing the order dated 18th December, 2009 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut directing special audit to be conducted under Section 142(2A) of the Act for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09 by M/s Tandon Seth and Company, Chartered Accounts of Kanpur. In this backdrop, we have heard Sri Ashish Bansal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Agrawal, the learned counsel for the income tax department. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi passed under Section 127 of the Act transferring the jurisdiction to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut was wholly illegal and in violati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner was still lying with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), New Delhi, inasmuch as the PAN of the petitioner had not migrated to the new Assessing Officer of Okhla and, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), New Delhi retained the jurisdiction. It was further submitted that before passing the order under Section 127 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, New Delhi issued a notice dated 28th August, 2008, which was sent by registered post on 29th August, 2008. Since no reply was received till 23rd September, 2008, an order dated 23rd September, 2008 was passed transferring the jurisdiction to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit a vague reply has been given that before issuing the corrigendum, a notice was issued to the petitioner and since no reply was received, a corrigendum was passed. No proof of issuance of notice has been filed. In our opinion, the assertion made in paragraph 8 and 10 of the counter affidavit is not only vague, and cannot be believed. Service of notice is required to be made in the manner specified under Section 282 of the Act. One of the method ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tently vague and unreliable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 23rd September, 2008 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, New Delhi transferring the case to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut was patently illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It was imperative for the authority to give notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before transferring the case under Section 127 of the Act, which in the instant case has not been done. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23rd September, 2008 as well as the corrigendum dated 26th October, 2009 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, New Delhi under Section 127 of the Act cannot be sustained. In the light of the aforesaid, all consequential proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut by issuance of notice dated 30th October, 2009 and the notice dated 7th December, 2009 and the consequential order dated 18th December, 2009 directing to conduct a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Act being without jurisdiction also cannot be sustained. One of the contention raised by the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
