IT assessment transfer upheld despite challenge over notice and DIN requirements under Section 127(2)

The Kerala HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of assessment proceedings from Sangli to Kozhikode under Section 127(2) of the IT Act. The petitioner contended the transfer order lacked mandatory notice, hearing, reasons, and Document Identification Number (DIN). The court found that proper notice was served through e-filing portal and registered email, giving the petitioner ten days to object. Since no reply was filed, the transfer order was validly passed. Regarding DIN requirement, the court noted the issue is pending before the SC. The court held valid reasons existed for transfer as the petitioner resided within Kozhikode jurisdiction and money was recovered there.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional transfer of assessment proceedings
2. Validity of notices under Section 153A and Section 142(1)/143(2) of the IT Act
3. Source of seized money and explanation provided by the petitioner
4. Lack of response to centralization proposal notice and transfer of case
5. Validity of order under Section 127(2) without DIN
6. Consideration of reasons for transfer of proceedings from Sangli to Kozhikode

Jurisdictional Transfer of Assessment Proceedings:
The petitioner challenged the transfer of jurisdiction from the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent without filing any objection to the notice issued by the Principal Commissioner at Pune. The petitioner contended that the transfer lacked mandatory notice and hearing as required by Section 127(2) of the IT Act. However, the court noted that the petitioner did not respond to the notice giving an opportunity to convey objections to the proposed centralization, resulting in the transfer of the case to Kozhikode.

Validity of Notices under Section 153A and Section 142(1)/143(2) of the IT Act:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging notices under Section 153A and Section 142(1)/143(2) of the IT Act for the Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2020-21. Additionally, the petitioner impugned assessment orders passed under Section 144 read with Section 153A for the same years. The petitioner did not file any return under Section 153A despite receiving notices, leading to further legal complications.

Source of Seized Money and Explanation Provided by the Petitioner:
A sum of Rs. 1,46,45,000 was seized from the petitioner and another individual during a joint inspection by Customs officials. The petitioner claimed ownership of the entire cash seized and provided explanations regarding the source of the money, including details of a supposed business transaction involving antique jewelry. However, the petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the provided documents and explanations.

Lack of Response to Centralization Proposal Notice and Transfer of Case:
Despite receiving a notice regarding the centralization proposal of the case, the petitioner did not respond within the stipulated time frame. Consequently, the case was transferred from Sangli to Kozhikode as per the provisions of the IT Act. The court rejected the petitioner's contention of not receiving the notice, emphasizing the importance of timely responses in legal proceedings.

Validity of Order under Section 127(2) Without DIN:
The petitioner raised concerns about the legality of the order passed under Section 127(2) due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN). The court noted that the issue of the order's validity in the absence of DIN is pending before the Supreme Court, citing a related judgment from the Delhi High Court. However, the court highlighted that the petitioner's lack of response to the notice was a crucial factor in the decision to transfer the case jurisdiction.

Consideration of Reasons for Transfer of Proceedings from Sangli to Kozhikode:
The court found that valid reasons existed for transferring the assessment proceedings from Sangli to Kozhikode, considering the petitioner's residence, business location, and the location where the money was recovered. Despite the petitioner's objections, the court concluded that the transfer was justified based on the available facts and jurisdictional considerations.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's contentions lacked merit. The petitioner was advised to seek appropriate remedies under the Income Tax Act if aggrieved by the assessment orders. The court also mentioned that time spent on the petition would be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal against the assessment orders.

---