TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued under Section 153C of the Act, it would ordinarily be in the interest of justice of all i.e. the assessee and the Revenue alike, that if parties are scattered across the different Cities and States, a common view is taken by one Assessment Officer, that must be the intent and objective. In the process, the inconvenience to the assessee would be to a large measure would be obviated because the Assessment Officer – or for that matter, the assessee would not be put to inconvenience in referring back and forth the orders of each of the other properties that have been searched and the view taken. This would also avoid possible conflicting views that may spell chaos. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no merit in this pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The cases of M/s United Associates is assessed to tax in Delhi. Since the case was to be centralized at Kanpur and it involved an intercity transfer, the assessee was asked to file his objection, if any, against the transfer of the case with ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kanpur. The assessee, through its authorized representative filed an objection dated 3.8.2015 wherein the assessee stated that till A.Y. 2013-14, it had filed its return of income with ACIT/DCIT, Cir. 50(1), New Delhi. From A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee has changed its address to 181/39, Dakkhin Dare, Kolkata and that the return which he has filed has the address of Kolkata only. In the letter, A.R. of the assessee also stated that since the address of the assessee has chang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is emphasized that the expression meaningful and coordinated investigation , which was finally accepted and even the reasons adduced in the order under Section 127(2) of the Act are untenable in the facts of this case. For a valid order of transfer, the Commissioner has to adduce cogent reasons and not cite vague propositions which would go to establish convenience of the Revenue as opposed to the inconvenience of the assessee. 8. What is in issue, therefore, is whether the order under Section 127(2) of the Act satisfies the requirements spelled out in the Statute? 9. This provision was interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ajantha Industries Ors. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC). In that case, the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, like the present one, search and seizure proceedings have been taken place and notices have been issued under Section 153C of the Act, it would ordinarily be in the interest of justice of all i.e. the assessee and the Revenue alike, that if parties are scattered across the different Cities and States, a common view is taken by one Assessment Officer, that must be the intent and objective. In the process, the inconvenience to the assessee would be to a large measure would be obviated because the Assessment Officer or for that matter, the assessee would not be put to inconvenience in referring back and forth the orders of each of the other properties that have been searched and the view taken. This would also avoid possible conflicting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
