TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransfer the files to enable the officer at Bangalore to continue recovery proceedings. The Board is free to issue appropriate proceedings in the matter as exhibit P3 is silent about pending matters and recovery - held that garnishee proceedings are valid, - - - - - Dated:- 7-9-2004 - Judge(s) : C. N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR. JUDGMENT C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR J. - The petitioner is challenging garnishee proceedings issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the third respondent for arrears of income-tax due and assessed for the year 1998-99. According to the petitioner, the petitioner shifted her residence to Bangalore where the petitioner filed her first income-tax return for the year 2001-02. The assessment issued by the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce by the petitioner, and even after filing the return for the year 2001-02 the petitioner requested for rectification of the assessment before the third respondent, who rectified the assessment for the year 1998-99 vide exhibit P1 order. The petitioner has no case that the tax assessed is not payable by the petitioner. Her contention is limited to the jurisdiction of the third respondent to initiate recovery proceedings including garnishee proceedings under section 226(3) of the Act, which is under challenge in this O.P. The jurisdiction of the income-tax authorities is prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes from time to time in exercise of powers under section 120(1) and (2) of the Act. There is no dispute that the jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessments or recovery of tax in respect of the completed assessments, etc., as on the date of shifting of residence by the assessees. Of course, the Board probably expects transfer of back-files from the Assessing Officer concerned to the officer before whom the petitioner is to be assessed after shifting of residence. In the absence of any specific provision in exhibit P3 about pending assessments and recovery of assessed tax, I feel, the Assessing Officer who made the assessment, namely, the third respondent continues to be the Assessing Officer for the purpose of recovery of tax assessed by him. In this case, the assessment in question is for the year 1998-99 and it is conceded by the petitioner that the third respondent had jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
