TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act are directed against a common judgment and order dated 31.5.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi in ITA No.1708 to 17013 /Del/2011 for the assessment year 1996-97 to 2001-02. The department has preferred the appeal on the following questions of law:- "(1) Whether, the ITAT was justified in quashing the order of the A.O. u/s 148 in view of the provisions of Section 127 (4) which stipulates transfer of case at any stage which shall not rendor reissuance of notice already issued by the earlier A.O.? (II) Whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the order of the A.O. u/s 147 /144 on basis of territorial jurisdiction completely ignoring the provisions of Section 124 (3) which talks about raising of jurisdictional issue within one month of issuance of notice which was not done in the present case? (III) Whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the order u/s 127 on grounds of non opportunity when it is clear that 127 does not talk of mandatory opportunity? (IV) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in quashing the order u/s 127 when the assessee could not substantiate his addr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The CIT (Appeals) shall also consider and adjudicate the question with regard to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners." The CIT (A) considered the question of jurisdiction and found that office of M/s Auram Jewellery is run by Deepak Gupta. The manufacture and export of plain gold jewellery was carried out in the unit at Noida within the jurisdiction of the CIT Circle Noida, which had jurisdiction over the company. The CIT (A) also found that the first return of the assessment year 2000-01, which was signed on 26.9.2000 at Noida by Shri Deepak Gupta was filed with ITO Ward-33, New Delhi with address given as 167 NEPZ, NOIDA. The territorial jurisdiction of such address lies with Income Tax Officer, NOIDA. Subsequent returns for the assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03 were filed disclosing address at 205, Kamal Plaza Building, Karol Bagh, New Delhi but in the place of PAN simply A/F is written. PAN quoted in the return by Shri Deepak Gupta for the assessment year 2000-01 was wrong as no series of PAN starts from the alphab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ida Range. The appellant's contention that no opportunity was given before passing of the jurisdiction order has no force because opportunity is required when appellant is being assessed at its appropriate territorial jurisdictional Ward/ Circle. As is obvious, the present case is otherwise; the department has only streamlined the assessment at correct jurisdiction. The appellant cannot be allowed to find flaws in the legal action of the department and claim relief for his illegal actions. All above discussion clearly establishes that the jurisdiction over the assessee's case validly lied with the ACIT, NOIDA. The appellant fails on this ground. Thus additional grounds raised by the appellant on the issue of jurisdiction are hereby dismissed." In the appeal filed by Shri Deepak Gupta the ITAT found that on the efforts made by ACIT the jurisdiction was transferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated 9.3.2004 under Section 127 (2) of the Act. The ACIT wrote a letter requesting to transfer the assessee's case from New Delhi to Ghaziabad. The jurisdiction was thereafter transferred within 5 days by order dated 9.3.2004 from one city to another without giving opportun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. The report of ACIT, Noida also confirms the facts that ITO Ward-33 (2), Delhi and Ward-27 (4), Delhi have confirmed their jurisdiction over the case of Sh. Deepak Gupta & Smt. Urmila Gupta respectively. Moreover, as of now there is no business activity in the company and the Directors are not receiving any remuneration. Therefore, automatic assumption of jurisdiction of Directors only by virtue of facts that company is assessed in Noida, does not hold good ground. Considering these facts the ACIT, Circle Noida should not automatically assume jurisdiction over the case of Sh. Deepak Gupta & Smt. Urmila Gupta. The inter charge change of jurisdiction between two regions requires concurrence of the concerned Commissioner and specific order u/s 127 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the concerned CCIOT having present jurisdiction of the case in Delhi, needs to be passed. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Tarun Kumar) Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (HQ)" The ITAT held that it is undisputed that the assessee was consecutively assessed at Delhi for number of years. Some sort of dispute arose at between the assessee and the high ranking officer of the Income Tax Department Shri Bani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction, whatsoever on the assessee, therefore, all the notices issued u/s 148 are invalid as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. This ground of the assessee is allowed. 6.2 Coming to issue raised by the assessee that the transfer of jurisdiction order u/s 127 (2) is also not proper in the eyes of law, it is clear that the CCIT, Meerut issued the letter to both the Commissioner i.e. CIT, Ghaziabad and CIT Delhi for inter charge transfer of jurisdiction on 3.3.2004. The impugned 127 (4) order has been passed by the CIT, Delhi on 9.3.2004 i.e. within 5 days. There is no reference to any opportunity of being heard given to the assessee. There is neither any reference in the order nor Ld. DR could dispute this fact. Ld. DR has only argued that it is an administrative order and denial of opportunity of hearing is not appellable, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the assessee. We are unable to agree with Ld. DR. Statutory requirements are always mandatory irrespective of the fact whether the same is appealable or not, therefore, any transfer order passed u/s 127 (2) of inter charge jurisdiction, without complying with the statutory requirement of giving opportunity of being heard t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transfer cannot be questioned unless there was an objection. The provisions of Section 127 (2) (a) provides for reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so. In the present case he submits that since the notice was served, the provisions of Section 127 (2) (a) have been complied with. Shri Dhananjay Awasthi also submits that since the office and the business premises of the petitioner was situated at Noida, it was ACIT, NOIDA, which had the jurisdiction to assess the petitioner. The notice under Section 147/148 gets validated even if it is issued by the officer, who was competent to assess the petitioner, if the order under Section 127 has been passed, when the returns were filed at Delhi. Shri Dhananjay Awasthi has relied upon Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur v. Union of India, (2013) 32 taxmann.com 320 (Chhattisgarh) in submitting that where search is conducted in group of companies as well as residential and official premises and it becomes necessary for coordinate investigation to centralise, powers under Section 127 (2) can be used. The object of centralization is to coordinate investigation. The word 'coordinate investigation' ....