AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2019 and issued summons to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has no jurisdiction to lodge any complainant by virtue of any notification under Section 119 or by virtue of any transfer of cases under Section 127 of the Act. The respondent is not an Assessing Officer holding jurisdiction over the petitioner's case. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 17(2), Chennai only has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner. Infact the Income Tax Officer had issued Show Cause Notice. However, the complaint has been lodged by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax who has got no jurisdiction. Even according to the respondent, the petitioner is assessed to Income Tax by the Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward 17(2), Chennai, but the sanction to prosecute the petitioner had been issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax which is contrary to the fact as well as the materials placed by the respondent. The complaint was lodged without making a regular assessment and examining the application of proviso of Section 276 CC of the Act. The respondent failed to state that the petitioner had wilfully failed to file the return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the Assessment year 2014-15 for a substantial consideration of Rs. 75 lakhs and that transaction had duly reflected in the Departmental Information System. Despite the existence of such taxable transaction and statutory obligation under Section 139(1) of the Act, the petitioner failed to file his return within the stipulated time. Therefore, the petitioner was served with Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2017 thereby calling upon to explain as to why the prosecution under Section 276 CC should not be initiated against him. On receipt of the same the petitioner submitted a reply dated 21.09.2017. After his reply the petitioner remitted certain tax with interest. However, the compliance subsequent to the Show Cause Notice does not efface the offence committed by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner committed the offence under section 276 CC of the Act. After being accorded sanction from the authority concerned, the respondent initiated prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 276 CC of the Act. She further submitted that the provisions under section 279 (1) of the Act stipulates that no prosecution shall be in instituted except with previous sanction of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 7. On perusal of records it is revealed that the petitioner and his wife had sold a property for a consideration of Rs. 75 lakhs. The purchaser had also deducted tax at source in respect of the said transaction. Apart from that his employer had also deducted tax on the salary Income of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was of the bonafide belief that there must be no tax liability in respect of the sale made since the income from the sale proceeds are re-invested. Further, since the employer had deducted tax at source in respect of the entire salary the petitioner, the petitioner was of a bonafide belief that he need not file tax returns for the income accrued by him for the assessment year 2014-15. The provisions under Section 139 of the Act provides for filing of return of Income. Section 139 (1) of the Act provides for voluntary filing of return, where the total income of a person during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to income tax. 8. The petitioner is assessed to tax under the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 17(1), Chennai. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iction by virtue of directions or orders is the Assessing Officer and not any one else. The I.T.O does not report to the respondent either through his representative or in discharge of quasi judicial proceedings. 12. After filing of the reply to the Show Cause Notice issued by the I.T.O, the respondent herein placed some records before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax seeking to accord sanction to initiate prosecution against the petitioner. Based on the records, the sanction was accorded to initiate prosecution against the petitioner. Therefore, when the respondent has no jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had accorded sanction without application of mind on the very question of jurisdiction itself. 13. The jurisdiction vested with the Income Tax authority can be transferred to another officer as per Section 127 of the Act. Section 127(1) of the act empowers the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer to transfer any case from one authority who is subordinate to him after recording reasons for doing so and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, wherever possible. In the case on hand there is no order o....