TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ational Taxation, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.1) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') as well as the reasons for initiating the reassessment under Sections 147/148 of the Act for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. 2. While directing notice to issue in these petitions on 15th March, 2022 this Court directed that no further steps shall be taken pursuant to the impugned notices and orders. 3. One of the grounds of challenge to the impugned notices and the reasons for reopening of the assessment for the aforementioned AYs is that Opposite Party No.1 lacks the jurisdiction to issue the said notices. Relevant to this issue the facts pleaded are that VRL is a non-resident company incorp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d concluded that VRL has business income arising in India in respect of the management consultancy fees paid to it by Vedanta Limited. He submitted that the proceedings initiated separately against Vedanta Limited in that regard have been challenged before the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras which by an order dated 26th April, 2021 in W.P. (C) No.8344 of 2021 stayed the recovery of the demand. He points out that the jurisdiction over the TAN of the Vedanta Limited lies with the CIT (IT), Chennai and Vedanta Limited itself is being assessed to tax on its PAN in New Delhi. It is accordingly submitted that even on this basis, Opposite Party No.1 sitting in Bhubaneswar could not have exercised jurisdiction over the Petitioner VRL. 6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Jharsuguda and in any event the said certificate was not acted upon. Further it is pointed out that the said certificate pertained to a transaction of 2020 whereas the present reassessment proceedings pertain to AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18. 8. As regards the payment received from the Vedanta Limited as Management Consultancy fees forming subject matter of the reopening, Mr. Jolly points out that this payment was made by Vedanta Limited from its Tuticorin Unit falling under the jurisdiction of the Officer at Madurai. Even by this logic, Opposite Party No.1 has no jurisdiction over the Petitioner. He further submits that in para (ii) of its counter affidavit dated 6th July 2022, the Department admits that the jurisdiction vis-à-vis a non....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icate under Section 197 of the IT Act in respect of which an order was passed by the DCIT at Bhubaneswar on 14th December 2020. 12. The Department has been unable to contradict the assertion of the Petitioner it has no place of operation or activity at Jharsuguda in Odisha. It continues to be a non-resident company incorporated in UK. It had applied for a lower deduction certificate in Odisha in 2020 only because it was to receive payment there and in any event such certificate was not acted upon. Further, the AYs in question are 2013-14 to 2017-18 which did not involve any such transaction of receiving payment at Jharsuguda in Odisha. As pointed out by the Petitioner, the reopening of the assessment appeared to be on the basis of the paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner- (a) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enced after the date of such order or direction in respect of any year. 15. A perusal of Section 127 (2) of the Act indicates that it envisages transfer of cases of an Assessee to an Assessing Officer (AO) not subordinate to the same Commissioner, who originally exercises jurisdiction over the Assessee. In the present case, it is CIT (IT)-1, New Delhi who would have to pass orders transferring jurisdiction of the cases of VRL to O.P. No.1 in Bhubaneswar. The latter is not subordinate to the CIT (IT)-1, New Delhi, but to his counterpart in Kolkata. In such event, under Section 127(2)(a), no such transfer of jurisdiction can take place without affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. The Department in the....