Fiat India Automobiles Limited v. Asstt. CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0064 (Bom-HC) : (2012) 254 CTR 0345 : (2012) 080 DTR 0001 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Transfer of caseValidity Notice not issued and served on assessee--Assessee-company shifted the registered office from Mumbai to Pune and applied for transfer of assessment records. Commissioner-Mumbai transferred the jurisdiction to assess/reassess assessee from ACIT-Mumbai to DCIT-Rule Pune under section 127. After sometimes, Commissioner-Mumbai issued corrigendum order and ACIT-Mumbai issued impugned notice under section 148 on the hasis of corrigendum order. The said order was passed without issuing notice to assessee, without hearing and was uncommunicated to assessee. Held: ,/i>The conduct of Commissioner and ACIT was highly deplorable. It was improper and abuse of law to pass alleged corrigendum order wit a view to circumvent the jurisdictional issue and, therefore, impugned notice was quashed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid by revenue to the assessee. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 127 In The BOMBAY High Court J. P. Devadhar & M. S. Sanklecha, JJ. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT Writ Petition No. 8657 of 2012 16 October, 2012 Petitioner by : P. J. Pardiwala, Niraj Se & Atul K. Jasani Respondent : Arvind Pinto JUDGMENT *J.P. Devadhar, J.* Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition is filed to challenge the notice dated 30-3-2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-10(1) Mumbai under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. The basic argument of the Petitioner is that once the Commissioner-10 Mumbai in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 127(2) of the Act has transferred the power to assess the Petitioner 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 30-3-2012 and therefore, the said notice dated 30-3-2012 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 Commissioner -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 is not in dispute that on transfer of the jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, the Additional Commissioner, (TP) Pune has assumed jurisdiction and accordingly issued a notice dated 29-3-2012 to the Petitioner under section 92CA of the Act relating to assessment year 2009-2010. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0064 (Bom-HC) : (2012) 254 CTR 0345 : (2012) 080 DTR 0001

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Transfer of caseValidity Notice not issued and served on assessee--Assessee-company shifted the registered office from Mumbai to Pune and applied for transfer of assessment records. Commissioner-Mumbai transferred the jurisdiction to assess/reassess assessee from ACIT-Mumbai to DCIT-Rule Pune under section 127. After sometimes, Commissioner-Mumbai issued corrigendum order and ACIT-Mumbai issued impugned notice under section 148 on the hasis of corrigendum order. The said order was passed without issuing notice to assessee, without hearing and was uncommunicated to assessee. Held: ,/i>The conduct of Commissioner and ACIT was highly deplorable. It was improper and abuse of law to pass alleged corrigendum order wit a view to circumvent the jurisdictional issue and, therefore, impugned notice was quashed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid by revenue to the assessee.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 127

In The BOMBAY High Court

J. P. Devadhar & M. S. Sanklecha, JJ.

Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

Writ Petition No. 8657 of 2012

16 October, 2012

Petitioner by : P. J. Pardiwala, Niraj Se & Atul K. Jasani

Respondent : Arvind Pinto

JUDGMENT

J.P. Devadhar, J.

Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. This writ petition is filed to challenge the notice dated 30-3-2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-10(1) Mumbai under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

3. The basic argument of the Petitioner is that once the Commissioner-10 Mumbai in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 127(2) of the Act has transferred the power to assess the Petitioner 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 30-3-2012 and therefore, the said notice dated 30-3-2012 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 Commissioner -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 is not in dispute that on transfer of the jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, the Additional Commissioner, (TP) Pune has assumed jurisdiction and accordingly issued a notice dated 29-3-2012 to the Petitioner under section 92CA of the Act relating to assessment year 2009-2010.