TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Upholds Transfer of Partnership Firm's Case, Emphasizes Procedural Compliance and Acquiescence</h1> <h3>Steel Engineering And Processing Works Versus Union of India And Others</h3> Steel Engineering And Processing Works Versus Union of India And Others - [2000] 243 ITR 721, 162 CTR 19, 106 TAXMANN 664 Issues:1. Transfer of case under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Compliance with procedural requirements under section 127.3. Allegations of laches, misrepresentation, and suppression of facts.4. Jurisdiction and acquiescence of the assessee in the transfer.Issue 1: Transfer of Case under Section 127:The petitioner, a partnership firm, challenged the transfer of its case from Patna to Ranchi under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that its business operations were primarily based in Patna, with a stockyard in Ranchi for storage purposes only. The transfer was initiated by the Revenue following the petitioner's request during a search operation in Ranchi. The petitioner objected to the transfer citing difficulties in cooperation due to the absence of account books in Ranchi, emphasizing that the entire business was conducted in Patna. However, the Revenue argued that the transfer was at the petitioner's request, highlighting discrepancies in the petitioner's conduct and compliance with notices.Issue 2: Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 127:The petitioner alleged that the transfer lacked proper opportunity for a hearing, violating the provisions of section 127. The Revenue countered by stating that the transfer order was communicated to the petitioner in due course and that the petitioner's delayed challenge through a writ petition was unjustified. The petitioner's refusal to accept notices and non-cooperation in assessment proceedings were highlighted by the Revenue as factors justifying the transfer.Issue 3: Allegations of Laches, Misrepresentation, and Suppression of Facts:The Revenue accused the petitioner of laches in filing the writ petition, misrepresentation, and suppression of material facts. The petitioner's role as a working partner drawing a salary from the firm, despite claims of business closure, was emphasized. The Revenue argued that the petitioner's actions were contradictory, as he had requested the transfer while challenging it through the writ petition.Issue 4: Jurisdiction and Acquiescence of the Assessee in the Transfer:The Court considered the petitioner's acquiescence in the transfer to Ranchi, as suggested by the petitioner himself due to the convenience of having records in Ranchi. The Court noted that once the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the transferee court and participated in assessment proceedings, statutory rights under section 127 were deemed waived. Citing legal precedents, the Court held that the petitioner's acquiescence negated the challenge to the transfer order, ultimately dismissing the writ petition.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the transfer of the case from Patna to Ranchi under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance, highlighted the petitioner's conduct and acquiescence in the transfer, and rejected claims of laches and misrepresentation. The decision underscored the significance of statutory rights and the impact of acquiescence on challenging jurisdictional transfers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
