Court quashes improper jurisdictional transfer by Income Tax Department, upholds assessee's rights

The court quashed the notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Balasore, transferring jurisdiction from Kolkata to Balasore for AY 2013-14 without complying with Section 124(4) of the IT Act. The court emphasized the petitioner's right to challenge the jurisdictional transfer, noting the lack of valid reasons for the shift. The petitioner's jurisdiction for filing returns was reaffirmed within the Kolkata Income Tax Circle, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance and protecting the assessee's rights during jurisdictional transfers.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14 due to transfer of jurisdiction from Kolkata to Balasore without complying with Section 124(4) of the IT Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested the notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Balasore, challenging the transfer of jurisdiction from Kolkata to Balasore for AY 2013-14 without complying with Section 124(4) of the IT Act. The petitioner had been filing returns in Bhubaneswar and Kolkata previously, and the sudden transfer of jurisdiction raised concerns regarding procedural compliance.

2. The petitioner, having shifted business activities from Bhubaneswar to Kolkata, was surprised by the transfer of jurisdiction to Balasore. The petitioner objected to this transfer, emphasizing the historical filing locations and lack of awareness regarding the jurisdictional shift. Despite objections, the ACIT, Balasore, continued issuing notices under Section 142(1) and proposed penalties under Section 271(1)(b) of the IT Act.

3. The petitioner filed a writ petition contending that the transfer lacked the necessary referral to the competent authority as per Section 124(2) of the IT Act. The court directed the Department to produce assessment records, highlighting the procedural irregularities in transferring jurisdiction without proper authorization.

4. The Department justified the transfer based on the petitioner's association with companies assessed in Balasore Circle. However, the court emphasized that mere directorship in a company within a specific jurisdiction does not automatically transfer an individual's jurisdiction. The court referenced the Bombay High Court's decision, emphasizing an assessee's right to challenge an Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.

5. The court noted the absence of a valid reason for shifting jurisdiction to Balasore when the petitioner had already transitioned to filing returns in Kolkata. Consequently, the impugned notices issued by the ACIT, Balasore, were quashed, reaffirming the petitioner's jurisdiction within the Kolkata Income Tax Circle for filing returns.

6. The judgment clarified that while the petitioner's jurisdiction remains in Kolkata, the Department retains the right to proceed lawfully if considering transferring jurisdiction to another circle. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with the order emphasizing the importance of procedural adherence and protecting the assessee's rights during jurisdictional transfers.

---