TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way. We gathered from the record that the underlying object of the decision is equitable distribution of work and as such the order passed by the authorities is for administrative convenience. The authorities have taken into consideration the grievance of the assessees that if they will feel any inconvenience, they may make request before the authority to hear their matter at Camp Court, Rourkela in this way also the interest of the petitioners – assessees have been protected. So far as the ground that the authorities while passing order on 22nd August, 2016 have reviewed its own order, which they cannot do and as such, the said order is per se illegal, but we find no force in this argument for the reason that this cannot be said to be review of the order, since there is no change in the orders, i.e. in the orders dtd.29.1.2015 and 22.8.2016, rather the grievance of the petitioners has been looked into and reasons of transfer of the cases has been communicated to them by reitering the reasons. No reason to interfere with the decisions taken by the authority. - W. P. (C) Nos.18211, 18214 & 18425 of 2016, W. P. (C) No. 18211 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2016 - Kumari Jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .153(c) / 142(1) of the Act have submitted that they have not received the copy of the change of jurisdiction order and as such, they are not in a position to submit the return. Opposite party no.5, thereafter has passed order on 22.08.2016 directing the petitioners to appear and to satisfy the authority with respect to the decision taken U/s.127 of the Income Tax Act. The opposite parties have passed an order affirming the decision of transfer of jurisdiction from Rourkela to Sambalpur which is under challenge in these writ petitions. The petitioners assessees while challenging the decisions / orders of the authorities of Income Tax have raised the ground that the order U/s.127 of the Income Tax has been passed without providing an opportunity of being heard and without assigning any reason. 3. Learned counsel representing Income-tax department has submitted that the jurisdiction has been shifted from Rourkela to Sambalpur on the ground of a general decision that situation arose due to re-structuring in the Income Tax Department in November, 2014, by which a Central Range was created at Bhubaneswar under the administrative control of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Circle, Sambalpur, which was duly served upon them, the case was fixed for hearing at Sambalpur on 20.11.2015, the authorized representative of the assessees appeared and filed written submission objecting to the letter issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur on the ground that before taking such decision they have not been provided with an opportunity of being heard and no notice has been given in this regard. The other ground taken that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has got no jurisdiction to review his own order since no provision has been made under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in this regard. The authorities concerned after hearing the parties and considering the same has passed the order stating therein that the cases of the groups were centralized with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur, pursuant to the proposal received from the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) Hyderabad and communication received from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa, by virtue of policy decision taken by the Apex Authority. The Commissioner has also passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner,- (a) where the [Principal Directors General or] Directors General or [Principal Chief Commissioners or] Chief Commissioners or [Principal Commissioners or] Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nistrate convenience and the power is one which is exercisable quite apart from and independent of the requirements U/s.124 of the Act, which deals with jurisdiction of the Assessing Officers. The Commissioner has jurisdiction to transfer cases only within his jurisdiction whereas the power of the Board is wider and it can transfer the cases from one jurisdiction of one Commissioner to another. The exercise of power by the Commissioner does not exhaust the power of the transfer by the Board and the Board has independent power U/s.127 of the Act to transfer cases. The provision further provides that opportunity of hearing where it is possible is stipulated under sub-section (1) of Section 127 and it also mandates recording of reasons for transfer of cases from one Assessing Officer to another, whether or not having concurrent jurisdiction. It is further evident that the provision of section 127 is procedural in nature and even in the pending proceeding it will be applicable. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Kashiram Aggarwalla Vrs. Union of India and Others, reported in 1965 56 ITR 14 (Supreme Court) while discussing the scope and object of Section 127(1) of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for making the transfer, even though no opportunity was in fact given to the assessee. If that be the true position, it is not easy to understand why the proviso should be so construed as to require reasons to be given for the transfer, even though no opportunity to the assessee is required to be given. That is one aspect of the matter which has to be borne in mind in determining the true scope and effect of the proviso. From going through the judgment it is evident that the whole purpose for providing opportunity of being heard is to consider the objection for passing the reason of transfer, so that the assessee may know the reason. 5. We in the light of this statutory provision have examined the order passed U/s.127 in these cases whereby and where under it is found that the authorities in view of the facts that the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) Hyderabad has issued an instruction on 20.11.2014 by which it has been communicated that due to restructuring of the Income Tax Department in November, 2014 a Central Range was created at Bhubaneswar under the Administrative control of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam and Director General of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no denial about the fact that if any decision is taken, which is detrimental to the interest of the parties, a notice is required to be given on the principle that no man can be condemned without hearing him. The earlier concept was that in case of violation of principles of natural justice, the order will be said to be illegal, but subsequently the view has come that merely on the ground of not providing any opportunity of being heard, the decision taken by the authority cannot be said to be illegal, unless and until the party shows as to how he has been prejudiced by not providing an opportunity of being heard and further even if the opportunity of hearing would have been provided, then would there any possibility in the change of the situation and if there is no chance in change of situation, merely for the purpose of following the principles of natural justice, no order is required to be passed on the ground of principle of futile exercise and empty formality. Moreover the underlying motive is to provide opportunity to know the reasons, we have found from the order dtd.29.01.2015 the reasons behind taking the decision of transfer, i.e. restructuring of the Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
