TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2022 issued u/s 127(2) of the Act that respondent no.1 was also available on the Income Tax Portal and a copy of the same was also attached to respondent no.3; and the specific plea was raised that notice dt. 22.03.2022 under Section 148 A (b) of the Act issued by respondent no.3 to the petitioner, was without jurisdiction. Ignoring the same, the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued on 01.04.2022 by respondent no.3. The respondents cannot place reliance on sub-section (4) of Section 127 of the Act and contend that the transfer of the case can be made at any stage of the proceedings and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is not invalidated because in the instant case, the transfer of jurisdiction was done on 15.03.2022, much prior to the issuance of notice under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Act on 01.04.2022. Had the transfer of jurisdiction happened after the issuance of notice of Sec.148 of the Act, the situation would have been otherwise. Writ petition is allowed; the notice issued u/s 148 by respondent no.3 is quashed and respondent no.3 is prohibited from taking any action pursuant thereto. - The Hon ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jections of the assessee latest by 29.03.2022; that the assessee filed her response on the Portal on 29.03.2022; then respondent no.3 passed an order, under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 01.04.2022. It is contended that since respondent no.3 had issued notice on 22.03.2022 itself and the information as to transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act came to his knowledge only on 30.03.2022, sometime thereafter and since he had issued notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act much earlier to his knowledge of transfer of jurisdiction, he had not committed any illegality in issuing the impugned notice. 6. It is also contended that PAN of the assessee was still not transferred by the office of Principal Commissioner, Income Tax-I, Chandigarh to ITO, Ward No.30 (1) New Delhi (respondent No.4) and the Income Tax Business Application was still showing it under the jurisdiction of ITO Ward No.1, Shimla (respondent no.3); that notice can only be issued online by the Assessing Officer under whose jurisdiction the PAN lies, and therefore, the notice under Section 148 of the Act was rightly issued. Rejoinder of petitioner 7. Rejoinder is filed thereto by the petitioner co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent no.1, since as per law, such transfer responsibility is on the Destination Assessing Officer, i.e., the Officer to whom PAN is to be transferred and not the Source Assessing Officer in whose jurisdiction the PAN presently lies. 12. It is also stated that the transfer of PAN is electronically done on ITBA Portal, which was started by the Income Tax Department, as a part of Government s E-governance. It is, therefore, contended that respondent no.3 cannot justify issuance of notice, under Section 148 of the Act, to the petitioner. 13. It is contended that as per the amendment carried out to Section 149 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, no notice under Section 148 of the Act can be issued if three years from the end of assessment year has lapsed unless the case falls under Clause (b) of Section 149 of the Act; but in terms of Section 149 (b) of the Act, limitation for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 was ten years for the income alleged to have escaped which is more than Rs.50.00 lacs i.e., it would expire only on 31.03.2026 and there is no reason for respondent no.3 to issue notice, under Section 148 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT( 4 supra). We, thus, set aside the impugned judgments4 and remit the cases to the respective High Courts to decide the writ petitions on merits. 3. We may make it clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the cases i.e. the contentions which are raised by the appellant challenging the move of the Income Tax Authorities to reopen the assessment. Each case shall be examined on its own merits keeping in view the scope of judicial review while entertaining such matters, as laid down by this Court in various judgments. 4. We are conscious of the fact that the High Court has referred to the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal( 5 supra). We find that the principle laid down in the said case does not apply to these cases. ( emphasis supplied) 20. Coming to the facts of the instant case, admittedly, the order under Section 127(2) of the Act was passed by respondent no.1 transferring to respondent no.4 at New Delhi, the power to assess the petitioner, which was with respondent no.3 (ITO, Ward No.1, Shimla). It was clearly mentioned therein that the said order would come into effect immediately with effect from 12.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
