TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch notice is already sent u/s.143(2) of the Act to the assessee, now no further re-issuance of notice is required. Therefore, the Hotel Blue Moon case (supra.) is factually distinguishable. Legislative intent becomes clear with reading to Section 127(3) and Section 127(4) of the Act that while Section 127(3) makes right to be heard dispensed with if the case transferred from one Assessing Officer to another in same city, place or locality and the assessee has agreed these facts. That Section 127(4) is clear that re-issuance of notice already issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction and now subsequently transferred to another Assessing Officer shall not be required. Considering the legislative intent as enshrined in the provision of Sections 127(3) and Section 127(4) of the Act, we are of the opinion that there has crept in mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal [ 2019 (8) TMI 1764 - ITAT PUNE ] is hereby recalled subject to dismissal of ground No.1 of the appeal. - M.A. No. 01/PUN/2021 (Arising out of ITA No. 695/PUN/2019) - - - Dated:- 27-9-2021 - Shri R.S.Syal, VP And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Revenue : Shri S.P Walimb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble ITAT mentioned in the order while adjudicating the case that on transfer of case reasonable opportunity of hearing should have to be given to the assessee as per provisions of section 127 of the Act, without considering that as per provisions of sub-section(3) of section 127 of the Act there is no need to give such opportunity to the assessee where the transfer is from one assessing officer to another assessing officer having offices situated in the same city, locality or place which is the fact involved in this case as both the officers, ITO, Ward 2(1), Aurangabad and ITO, Ward 2(4), Aurangabad are having their offices situated in the same city and locality. 4) The Hon'ble ITAT, Pune held that on transfer of case, the assessee should have been informed and hearing should have taken place, without considering that it can seen from the case record that while transferring the case from ITO, Ward 2(1), Aurangabad to ITO, Ward 2(4), Aurangabad copy of transfer memo dated 10/10/2016 has been marked to the assessee, further on transfer of case from ITO, Ward 2(1), Aurangabad to ITO, Ward 2(4), Aurangabad notice under section 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Income Tax Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier. In this case, as the assessee has not taken objection regarding jurisdiction of assessing officer during the assessment proceedings, hence, assessee is not entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an assessing officer who has passed the assessment order in this case. Further as the authorized representative of the assessee has appeared before the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings, as per provisions of section 292BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 assessee is precluded from taking any objection regarding non- service or improper service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income -tax Act, 1961. 7) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any other ground at the time of hearing. 8) The appellant prays to file any of the additional evidence appropriate to the grounds taken in appeal, as per circumstances of the case. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR filing detailed written submissions has contended that in this case there is no order for transfer of case in the assessment record and so the issue of compliance of provisions of Section 127 of the Act does not arise and as per provisions of sub section 127 of the Act, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24(3) of the Act; (ii) the provisions of Section 292 BB; (iii) chart of jurisdiction; (iv) copy of transfer etc. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record‟ in the order of the Tribunal dated 06.08.2019. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that not raising of pleas or ground, not placing of evidences like charts and transfer order, not referring of sections at the time of original trial cannot be subject matter of the Miscellaneous Application as envisaged u/s.254(2) of the Act. 4.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Revenue has failed to point out any apparent mistake in the order warranting rectification. The Revenue is seeking review of the entire order in the grab of rectification which is basically beyond the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR prayed for dismissing the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed strong reliance on the following decisions: (i) Dholandhar Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT/W.P. C No.369/2014 CM Appl. 740/2004 (ii) CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia, Income Tax Appeal No.127 of 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
