TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en dealt with either in the Order dated 21 November 2022 disposing of the objections raised by the Petitioner much less have the same been reflected in the Order impugned u/s 127(2) - AO appears to have acted very mechanically treating the request from DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur, as if it was binding upon him. In our opinion, the said request was not at all binding inasmuch as if it was so, then the agreement envisaged under Section 127(1)(a) would be rendered superfluous. Section 127(1) (b) contemplates a situation where in the event of a disagreement, the matter is referred to an officer as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in that behalf. Not only this, if a request for transfer of jurisdiction was to be treated as binding, then it would have rendered otiose Section 127 to the extent the same envisages an opportunity of being heard to be provided to the Petitioner. The obligation on the part of AO to record reasons before ordering the transfer of the case and the right of the assessee to be heard in the matter are not hollow slogans but prescribed to achieve a particular purpose and the purpose is to remove any element of arbitrariness wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other assessing officers also subordinate to him, after recording reasons and after giving to the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so. Section 127(2) further envisages that where the Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same officer, then there ought to be an agreement between the Principal Commissioner or other authorities mentioned in the said sub-section exercising jurisdiction over such assessing officers, and an Order can then be passed after recording reasons and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 5. Objections to the transfer of jurisdiction were filed by the Petitioner, wherein, it was stated that there was no basis for transfer of the assessment jurisdiction of the Petitioner from DCIT- 19(3), Mumbai to the DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur as there was no material found during the search operation, which would connect the Petitioner with the Vito Group of Jaipur. It was also stated that no such search was conducted in terms of Section 132 of the Act on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Madhur Agrawal, vehemently urged that there was absolutely no basis or material with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Mumbai to Order the transfer of the assessment jurisdiction of the Petitioner from DCIT-19(3), Mumbai to DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur. It was stated that had there been any material, the same ought to have been reflected in the show cause notice and provided to the Petitioner, which would have then enabled the Petitioner to file an effective reply. It was, thus, urged that the action of the Respondent-revenue was, therefore, arbitrary. In addition to this, it was stated that according to the records of survey proceeding prepared by the Respondent-revenue, during the survey conducted on M/s Landmark Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, nothing incriminating was found and no inventory prepared. For the purpose of reference what was recorded in the survey proceeding, is reproduced herein below : 4. In the course of the Survey. A) The following were found and inventoried Nil. 8. Reply affidavit has been filed by the Respondent-revenue, wherein it is stated that the assessment jurisdiction of the Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and data found and seized/impounded may relate to the assessee as well as other assesses of this group. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, therefore, did not appear to be in possession of any material at all, based upon which he could draw his satisfaction that the assessment jurisdiction deserved to be transferred from DCIT-19(3), Mumbai to the DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur and rather appears to have speculated that only because there was a search/survey conducted and a request made by the concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Rajasthan, the jurisdiction had to be transferred following the instructions of CBDT dated 17 September 2008. Reference to the instructions dated 17 September 2008 relied upon by the Respondent-revenue is pertinent and in particular clause (d), which is reproduced herein under : (d) The ADIT (Inv.) should send proposal for centralization through the Addl. DIT (Inv.) to the DIT(Inv.) who in turn should send the proposal to the CIT (C) or the CIT as mentioned in (C) above as the case may be within 30 days of initiation of search. The proposal should contain names of the cases their PANs, the designation of the present ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -3, Jaipur, as if it was binding upon him. In our opinion, the said request was not at all binding inasmuch as if it was so, then the agreement envisaged under Section 127(1)(a) would be rendered superfluous. The agreement envisaged in terms of aforesaid section is not in the context of showing deference to a request made by a colleague or higher officer, but an agreement based upon an independent assessment of the request in the light of the reasons recorded seeking transfer of the jurisdiction. Infact, section 127(1) (b) contemplates a situation where in the event of a disagreement, the matter is referred to an officer as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in that behalf. Not only this, if a request for transfer of jurisdiction was to be treated as binding, then it would have rendered otiose Section 127 to the extent the same envisages an opportunity of being heard to be provided to the Petitioner. The obligation on the part of the assessing officer to record reasons before ordering the transfer of the case and the right of the assessee to be heard in the matter are not hollow slogans but prescribed to achieve a particular purpose and the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
