TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept for a short period of five years beginning from the middle of 1978 till 1984 during which period the petitioner was posted in Delhi as Director, Ministry of Home Affairs. Admittedly, the petitioner filed his returns at Dimapur from 1971 onwards and as such assessment was made at Dimapur. As stated above, during the period from 1978 to 1984, since the petitioner was serving in Delhi on deputation and since the petitioner had his residence there in Delhi where his income also accrued, returns were filed in Delhi during the aforesaid period from 1978 to 1984. Thereafter, the income-tax assessment for the year 1984-85 was made at Dimapur, vide annexure-J dated March 31, 1987. Return of income-tax was furnished by the petitioner on Augu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record had not been sent to the Income-tax Officer, Delhi. The Commissioner of Income-tax, North Eastern Region, Shillong, sent a statutory notice dated December 23, 1988, under section 127 of the Income-tax Act for transfer of jurisdiction of the petitioner from the Income-tax Officer, Dimapur, to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation) Circle-8 (1), New Delhi, for administrative convenience. The petitioner was directed to appear in Shillong on January 16, 1989, either in person or through a representative duly authorised in writing in this behalf. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice by his letter dated January 5, 1989. A strong objection was taken to the proposed transfer of jurisdiction. It was contended by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax (Investigation) by the Income-tax Officer, Dimapur "as directed" by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Delhi. Apparently no mention of assessment year is made in this order/letter. The other order/letter dated September 20, 1990, impugned in this petition relates to the transfer of return of income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1990-91. It is indicated in this order that the income-tax return in respect of the petitioner for the assessment year 1990-91 was filed on July 23, 1990. It was further stated "the jurisdiction of the case lies under your circle". By letter dated October 9, 1990, the petitioner protested to the Income-tax Officer questioning as to the relevant section of law under which j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to deal with the income-tax return of the petitioner for the period in question. It is submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Shillong, and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, exercise jurisdictions for different areas. It is also contended that the petitioner had not defaulted in any manner in filing his returns. Since the period in question clearly indicates that the petitioner was residing in Nagaland as he was serving in Nagaland, in terms of section 120 of the Income-tax Act only Dimapur has jurisdiction in respect of the petitioner for the period in question. As stated above the impugned orders/letters dated March 15, 1990, and September 20, 1990, were passed/issued under the direction of respondent No. 5. It is cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether transfer is detrimental to the petitioner who was in Nagaland at the relevant time. According to Mr. Saikia, since the petitioner is no longer in Nagaland no inconvenience will be caused to him if the matter is taken up in Delhi. According to him, in such a situation, the question of inconvenience raised by the petitioner will be only an academic exercise. At this stage, it may be stated that the question of inconvenience was mentioned by the petitioner while replying to a notice under section 127 received from the Commissioner of Income-tax, Shillong. It appears regarding the impugned orders/letters the question of convenience or inconvenience of the petitioner is not at issue. Mr. Saikia also submits that the petitioner has all al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submission also it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the instruction aforesaid has already been held to be bad by the appellate authority in the aforesaid appeals filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income-tax. Relying on 148 ITR 95 (sic) as regards venue and jurisdiction, Mr. N. N. Saikia further submits that the petitioner cannot claim to be heard before any order for transfer of jurisdiction is issued. Once again it may be stated that although the petitioner had given a detailed reply to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Shillong, in regard to the notice under section 127 of the Act, no final order was ever communicated to the petitioner. At the same time, as stated earlier, action in the impugned letters/order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
