TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner on 22.11.2011 from ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to DCIT, Circle-1(2) Pune, then the ACIT-10(1) would have no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice dated 30.03.2012 and therefore, the said notice dated 30.03.2012 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. The relevant facts are that on shifting the registered office of the Petitioner from Mumbai to Pune, the Petitioner in June-July, 2009 had applied for transfer of assessment records from Mumbai to Pune. After, exchange of several letters, the CIT-10 Mumbai by his order dated 22.11.2011 transferred the powers to assess the petitioner from ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to DCIT, Circle-1(2) Pune. Thus, from 22.11.2011 ACIT-10(1) Mumbai did not have any power to assess or reassess the petitioner. 5. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that neither any notice to pass a corrigendum order was issued to the petitioner nor the alleged corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 has been served upon the petitioner till date. 8. Mr. Pinto, learned Counsel for the Revenue on instruction from CIT-10 Mumbai informs us that there is no proof of serving the corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 upon the petitioner. It is neither the case of the revenue that before passing the corrigendum any notice was issued to the petitioner nor it is the case of the revenue that the corrigendum order was passed after hearing the petitioner. 9. Although in the affidavit in reply the revenue claims to have annexed a copy of the corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 no such order was in fact annexed to the affi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion therefore to be considered is, when the CIT-10 Mumbai has transferred the jurisdiction to assess/reassess the petitioner from ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to DCIT Circle-1(2) Pune under Section 127 of the Act after hearing the petitioner on 22.11.2011, whether the CIT-10 Mumbai at the instance of ACIT-10(1) Mumbai is justified in issuing a corrigendum order on 27.03.2012 behind the back of the petitioner & whether the ACIT-10(1) Mumbai is justified in issuing the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2012 on the basis of the said corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 which is passed without issuing a notice to the petitioner, without hearing the petitioner and which is uncommunicated to the petitioner. 13. Mr. Pinto, learned Coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of bringing to book the persons who circumvent the provisions of law, the ACIT-10(1) Mumbai has himself indulged in circumventing the provisions of law which is totally disgraceful. 15. In any event, the CIT-10 Mumbai ought not to have succumbed to the unjust demands of ACIT-10(1) and instead ought to have admonished the ACIT-10(1) for making such unjust request. The CIT-10 Mumbai ought to have known that there is no provision under the Act which empowers the CIT to temporarily withdraw the order passed by him under Section 127(2) of the Act for the sake of administrative convenience or otherwise. If the CIT-10 Mumbai was honestly of the opinion that the order passed under Section 127(2) of the Act was required to be recalled for any vali....