Court dismisses Writ Petitions for Income Tax transfer, citing lack of application, unsubstantiated harassment, and procedural compliance

The court dismissed the Writ Petitions seeking transfer of Income Tax Assessment Proceedings, citing lack of application for transfer with the Commissioner as a necessary step. Allegations of harassment by the Assessing Officer were not substantiated, with no proof of malafide intentions found. Since assessment orders were already communicated and appeals were pending, no direction to transfer cases was warranted. The issue of fabricated evidence was deemed unnecessary for the Writ Petition as it was under appellate consideration. The court found procedural compliance by Income Tax Authorities in order, leading to the dismissal of the petitions without costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of Income Tax Assessment Proceedings
2. Alleged Harassment by Assessing Officer
3. Validity of Assessment Orders
4. Allegations of Fabricated Evidence
5. Procedural Compliance by Income Tax Authorities

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer of Income Tax Assessment Proceedings:
The petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax to transfer their assessment files from the current Assessing Officers to another officer. The court noted that the power to transfer cases under the Income Tax Act is governed by Section 127. According to this section, the Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Commissioner can transfer cases after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and recording the reasons for the transfer. The court highlighted that the petitioners had not filed an application for transfer with the Commissioner, which is a necessary step before seeking such a directive from the court. Consequently, the court found that the Writ Petitions were liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

2. Alleged Harassment by Assessing Officer:
The petitioners alleged that the first respondent had been unreasonably harassing them, citing a Special Court order under TNPID Act that showed the petitioner had repaid depositors. They claimed that the proceedings were based on a bogus fax message from one Mr. P.R. Balakrishnan, whose existence was not verifiable. The court examined the affidavits and counter-affidavits and found no substantial proof of malafide intentions by the respondents. The court noted that the petitioners had been cooperating in the assessment proceedings and only raised objections after several hearings, suggesting an attempt to thwart the assessment process.

3. Validity of Assessment Orders:
The court noted that the assessment orders for the petitioners had already been passed and communicated. The petitioners had filed appeals against these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Since the assessment proceedings were concluded and appeals were pending, the court found no grounds to issue a direction to transfer the cases.

4. Allegations of Fabricated Evidence:
The petitioners contended that the fax message from P.R. Balakrishnan was fabricated. The court observed that this issue was already raised by the petitioners in their appeal against the assessment order. Therefore, the court deemed it unnecessary to decide on this matter within the scope of the Writ Petition, as it was already under consideration by the appellate authority.

5. Procedural Compliance by Income Tax Authorities:
The petitioners argued that the assessment order for one of them was not passed on the date claimed by the respondent. The court examined evidence, including screen shots and postal records, and found that the assessment order was indeed passed and dispatched as claimed by the respondent. The court also noted that there was no prohibitory order preventing the department from proceeding with the assessment, and thus, the attachment order was not issued in a hurried or improper manner.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioners had not made out any case for granting the relief sought. The Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed. No costs were awarded.

---