Court dismisses challenge to income tax records transfer; Upholds jurisdiction decision citing incriminating documents.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of the transfer of income tax records to an Officer with jurisdiction over the Chembur Area. The Commissioner upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, citing the volume of incriminating documents and time constraints. The court noted the petitioner's delayed objection to jurisdiction and lack of demonstrated prejudice, ultimately finding the transfer request appeared to be an attempt to delay the investigation. The petition was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting transfer of income tax records based on change of address and jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order rejecting the transfer of income tax records from the present Assessing Officer to an Officer having jurisdiction over the Chembur Area. The petitioner had informed the present Assessing Officer about a change of address to Chembur, Mumbai. The requests for transfer were made after a survey action under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act was carried out on the petitioner. The Assessing Officer cited ongoing survey proceedings and proceedings for the Assessment Year 2010-11 as reasons for rejecting the transfer request. The petitioner then approached the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 124(2) of the Act, questioning the jurisdiction of the present Assessing Officer and seeking a transfer of case papers to an Officer having jurisdiction over the Chembur area.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, in the impugned order, upheld the reasoning of the Assessing Officer for rejecting the transfer application. The Commissioner noted the large number of incriminating documents found during survey proceedings and the impending time bar for proceedings for Assessment Year 2010-11. It was deemed impossible for a new Officer to familiarize with all the documents and pass an appropriate order in a short time. The Commissioner also observed that the petitioner had not challenged the jurisdiction of the present Assessing Officer before the survey action and concluded that the transfer request seemed like an attempt to delay the investigation. The objection to the jurisdiction of the present Assessing Officer was raised only after the survey proceedings began, and the petitioner had not shown any prejudice that would be caused if the case records were not transferred.

Upon hearing the arguments of both parties, the court noted that the objection to the jurisdiction of the present Assessing Officer was raised after the survey proceedings had started. The petitioner's correspondence showed multiple addresses, including one at Vile Parle. The court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any prejudice that would result from not transferring the case records, while acknowledging the potential prejudice to the revenue if the records were transferred at that stage. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the application for transfer did not appear to be bonafide. No order was issued regarding costs.

---