V.V. Minerals v. Pr. CIT - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1501 (Mad-HC) : (2020) 426 ITR 0023 : (2020) 315 CTR 0696

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 127(2)

Reason for transfer of assesse's case of another AO was clearly indicated in the show cause notice, i.e., for centralisation of cases and for effective and co-ordianted investigation impugned order came to be passed on 19-2-2019 and till the issuance of assessment Notices, dated 15-7-2019 under section 153 Aassessee did not challenge the order of transfer and there was no explanation for delay in challenge. Hence, assessee was barred from challenging the same in exercise of jurisdiction by a new authority and there was no need to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition was dismissed.

Transfer of cases - Validity - Assessee pleading no opportunity of being heard given before transfer - Inspite of having sufficient time to challenge order of transfer assessee failed to do so

Search was concluded against assessee without any incriminating materials being found against assessee. Later, assessee received a Notice, dated 28-1-2019 from Pr.CIT under section 127(2) proposing transfer of assessee's cases to the Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai. Assessee was also directed to give resposne and personal hearing was fixed on 12-2-2019. Assessee sent a reply on 16-2-2019 seeking certain documents in order to enable him to file objections. However, request of assessee was ignored, notifying the date of hearing as 18-2-2019. Though assessee insisted that documents requested were vital to respond and make objections, without even furnishing the documents sought for impugned order came to be passed. The said order was challenged by way of writ petition contending that same was in contravention of section 127(2) as Pr. CIT had not complied with mandatory requirements for transfer of cases to Dy.CIT, Central Circule-2, Madurai, on the ground that centralization of group of cases was essential for effective and co-ordinated investigation as impugned order lacked reason.Held: Reason for transfer was clearly indicated in the show cause notice, i.e., for centralisation of cases and for effective and co-ordianted investigation impugned order came to be passed on 19-2-2019 and till the issuance of assessment Notices, dated 15-7-2019 under section 153 Aassessee did not challenge the order of transfer and there was no explanation for delay in challenge. Hence, assessee was barred from challenging the same in exercise of jurisdiction by a new authority and there was no exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition was dismissed.

Distinguished:Advantage Strategic Consulting (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT, Chennai (2017) 88 Taxmann.com 104 (Mad) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5122 (Mad-HC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. :

IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT