TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee also filed the response to the said notices. 3. The AO based on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act and also the answer given to question no. 37, the sale consideration in respect of the plots sold were estimated. The AO based on the said statement, had come to the conclusion that the assessee had shown a lesser sale value and added the said difference as undisclosed income. The AO also made an addition under the head income from other sources. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised several grounds on merits and also filed written submissions questioning the jurisdiction of the AO at Bellary on the ground that the transfer made u/s. 127 of the Act, transferring the jurisdiction from the Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) to Bellary is not correct since CIT had not issued any notice u/s. 127 and recorded his satisfaction, after the assessee filed their objections to the said transfer. The assessee also submitted that the AO at Belgaum (Belagavi) who had issued a notice u/s. 153A is also not having jurisdiction when the jurisdiction of the assessee has been transferred to the said AO. The assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) to Belagavi (Belgaum). The Ld.AR further submitted that no notice has been issued before passing the order u/s. 127 and also reasons recorded by the Ld. CIT(A), Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) for transferring the jurisdiction from Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) to Belagavi (Belgaum) was not communicated to the assessee, for filing the objections to the same and therefore the said order is non-est in law and based on that, the proceedings could not be initiated by the AO. The Ld.AR further submitted that only from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee came to know that there was an order dated 03/07/2018 passed by the Ld. CIT, Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) which was not communicated to the assessee till date and therefore sent representation on 25/06/2024 to the CIT(A) for providing the notice and the order passed u/s. 127 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee also sent a representation to the AO, Central Circle, Bellary on 09/07/2024 seeking the copy of the said notice and order passed u/s. 127 of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) had not furnished the said details till date. The Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld. DR may be directed to give a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stained. Finally, the Ld.AR submitted that when the respective CITs had already transferred the jurisdiction from Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) to Belagavi (Belgaum) and from Belagavi (Belgaum) to Bellary, the subsequent transfer order passed on 02/12/2019 by the PCIT, Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) is also not in accordance with law and therefore prayed that the entire assessment should be set aside. The Ld.AR also made his submissions in respect of the limitation as well as on merits and prayed to allow the appeal. 7. The Ld.AR also filed three paper books and also enclosed the orders of the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Ld.AR also filed a statement showing the datewise sequence of events. 8. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the notice u/s. 153A was issued by the DCIT, Belagavi (Belgaum) on 14/01/2019 after the CIT, Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) has transferred the case of the assessee from Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) to Belagavi (Belgaum) on 03/07/2018. The Ld.DR also filed a small note about the order passed u/s. 127 of the Act and furnished the order dated 08/06/2018 in which the Centralised order was passed by the PCIT, Central Circle, Ban....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Principal Director General or Director General or (a) Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal 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; where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransfer order dated 22/10/2019 is also not in accordance with the provisions of section 127(1) of the Act. In both the orders, the authorities had not issued any notice inviting objections and also not recorded any reasons for transferring the case from one AO to another and also not communicated the said transfer order to the assessee and therefore the subsequent order also not made in compliance with the provisions of the Act. 15. We also drew our support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1976 AIR 437 (SC) in the case of Ajantha Industries And Ors vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt with the procedures to be followed u/s. 127 of the Act and also spelled out the effect of the non-compliance with the said procedures. "This judgment was rendered by this Court on December 21, 1956, and we find that in the 1961 Act section 127 replaced section 5(7A) where the legislature has introduced, inter alia, the requirement of recording reasons in making the order of transfer. It is manifest that once an order is passed transferring the case file of an assessee to another area the order has to be c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....easons and communicate these reasons to the parties affected thereby. It was further held that the reasons could not be gathered from the nothings in the files of the Central Government. Recording of reasons and disclosure thereof is not a mere formality. Mr. Sharma drew our attention to a decision of this Court in Kashiran Aggarwalalla vs. Union of India and other. It is submitted that this Court took the view that orders under section 127(1) are held in that decision to be purely administrative in nature" passed for consideration of convenience and no possible prejudice could be involved in the transfer. It was also held therein that under the proviso to section 127(1) it was not necessary to give the appellant an opportunity to be heard and there was consequently no need to record reasons for the transfer. This decision is not of any assistance to the Revenue in the present case since that was a transfer from one Income- tax Officer to another Income-tax Officer in the same city, or, as stated in the judgment itself, in the same locality" and the proviso to section 127(1), therefore, applied. When law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order affect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....76] 102 ITR 281 that non-communication of the transfer order is a serious infirmity and hence the order was invalid. The same view was also taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of V.K. Steel Industries Put. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 403." 17. The above said judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court supports the view taken by us. We, therefore, have no hesitation to conclude that the transfer order dated 03/07/2018 passed by the Ld. CIT, Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) transferring the case from the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) to Belagavi (Belgaum) is illegal and therefore the consequential notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act by the DCIT, Central, Belagavi (Belgaum) is without jurisdiction. When we have held that the transfer order dated 03/07/2018 is bad in law and the consequential notice issued by the DCIT, Belagavi (Belgaum) u/s. 153A dated 14/01/2019 is also not sustainable, the subsequent proceedings dated 21/06/2021 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle, Bellary u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act could not be sustained. 18. In view of the decision taken by us in respect of the legal plea raised by the assessee, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncessi appelants case, the fed valuation of house building constructed a Hussaini Garden, 0 008 8 period 1998-99 to no additions to the house constructed a 10 lock period AY: 2012-13 supra during the rock was duly brought to the price of the assessing officer vide submission filed corroborates the above. Revised 6 The alleged incriminating materials does ustify and enable the saferenchas placcon cell through 131(1)(d) of the valuation cen - section ommission underne of section 142A. The only reasonable and ogical inference is that the officer has, without application of mind to unicer masterials, analysis of the seized Materials, referred Department Jaluation Officer, only to get additional assesment is Valuation Offen, assessment which Is time for the provisions of asso under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. So being facts actions of the learned the facts, the awere not valid and assessing officer provisions of the Act. contrary to the red is placed on the Ollowing all precedent judicial Reliance micial precer of Income Tax & Ors V/s Goldstone 2 0 5 (2024) 336 cements Ltd CTR (Gau) 448. b) Principal CIT V/s Abhisar Buildwer c) 729 332 CTR (sortune Vanijya c (P) Ltd....