TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an objection to the jurisdiction of the Assessing officer, Gondia, to assess his income on tile ground that he had shifted his, Nagpur). He also requested for transfer of his case from Gondia to Nagpur. The Commissioner made enquiries, called for the report from the Assessing Officer, Gondia, and on that basis (but without hearing the petitioner) rejected the application by making a short order dated January 14, 1991, saying that transfer would not be " in the interest of the Revenue The material provisions governing the jurisdiction of the incometax authorities and transfer of cases are sections 120, 124 and 127 of the Income-tax Act. Section 120 as substituted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, and brought into force with effect from April 1, 1988, is a general provision regarding jurisdiction of all income-tax authorities. Section 124 deals with the jurisdiction of Assessing Officers. Sub-section (1) provides that within the territorial limits assigned to him, the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction in respect of a person residing or carrying on business in that area. Sub-section (2) refers to the authorities empowered to determine the question of jurisdiction. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n our view rightly that, considering the letter and/or spirit of section 127, there is no reason to draw, in the matter of an opportunity, a distinction between an order of transfer made despite opposition of an assessee and an order not made despite his request, specially when section 124(3) has given him a right to call in question the jurisdiction of a particular Assessing Officer. The total scheme relating to jurisdiction and transfer ( sections 120, 124 and 127) is a proportionate mix of consideration for convenience of an assessee and interest of the Revenue and it aims at striking a balance between the private and public interest. The provisions of section 124 area combination of the provisions of sections 5(5) and 64 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Section 124 speaks of a vested right of an assessee to have his assessment made at the principal place of his business and in the case of any objection relating thereto to have the same determined at the hands of a high authority like the Commissioner. The following observations of this court in the case of Dayaldas Kushiram v. CIT [1940]8 ITR 139, 146, 149 ; AIR 1940 Bom 234 at pages 237 and 238 though made in the context of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) Section 127 restricts the obligation of hearing and passing speaking order only when the case is to be transferred suo motu. (4) Section 127 excludes by necessary implication an opportunity of hearing when there is refusal to transfer. (5) In any case, perusal of the contents of an application made by the petitioner and the enquiry report obtained from the Assessing Officer is sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice. Now, the first proposition is well settled and admits of no debate. (See for example the case of Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40 ). In support of the second proposition, strong reliance is placed upon the following observations made by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kanji Mal and Sons v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 391, 412 : " One can, however, easily appreciate that all these safeguards are not really necessary and the objection as to jurisdiction would only be a purely hypertechnical objection in a case where, when all is said and done, an assessee has been assessed by an Income-tax Officer, who is in charge of the area, where he resides or principally carries on business and the assessee has been put to no inconvenienc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view its historical background. The clear object of section 127 is to afford an opportunity to the assessee to put forth his point of view in the matter of transfer and to inform him, though briefly, of the reasons for not accepting the same. What can be the logic behind providing an opportunity only when the case is to be transferred despite his objection and not providing such an opportunity when the case is not to be transferred despite his request ? One of the rules of interpretation of statutes is that imprecision in the language used in the statute should not be allowed in the way of adopting a reasonable construction which avoids incongruities and advances the object and substantial justice. Therefore, in our view, section 127 will apply not only when the case is to be transferred despite objection of the assessee but also when it is not to be transferred despite his request. The fourth proposition is based on the maxim " Expressio unius est exclusio alterius " which is a rule of prohibition by necessary implication. We do not think that the above rule will apply in the instant case. In this context, we can do no better than to quote the following passage from de Smith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
