The Madras High Court has quashed communication sent by Non-Application of Mind and granted relief to Aircel by considering the petitioners refund claim.
Justice T.S. Sivagnanam has held so while allowing the petition filed by Aircel.
The petitioner had filed the Writ Petition seeking the direction of refund in respect of the petitioner’s income tax returns.
The petitioner has challenged a communication sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, informing the petitioner that, pursuance to their Letter, dated 05.08.2016 intimating change in their register office and on receipt of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Mumbai, the petitioner’s cases have been transferred out of the office of the respondent to the Income Tax Office – 9 (1) – 2, at Mumbai, and henceforth, the petitioner may contact the Assessing Officer at Mumbai for any queries.
The first set of petition came up before the court and the counsel for the petitioner acknowledged the court regarding the refund application filed by him has been pending for almost a year, and no orders have been passed. Further the petitioner sought for direction upon the respondent to dispose of the Refund Application within a time frame. The court while granting interim injunction restraining the respondent not to transfer the files to Mumbai, and those Writ Petitions were directed to be tagged along with Writ Petitions.
The petitioner in the impugned communication clarified that the correspondence address will remain unchanged, and their registered office of the Company is shifted to Mumbai which are cognizance of the petitioner’s letters dated 03.08.2016 and 08.08.2016.
Thus it is clear from the above communication was that the petitioner did not seek for transfer of file to Mumbai, rather they specifically requested the respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to send all the communications to the Chennai address.
The Court observed that, misreading of the petitioner’s letters, that resulted in issuance of the impugned communication, by which, the petitioner’s files have been transferred to the file of the Assessing Officer at Mumbai.
The court also observed it as this, in fact, would be sufficient to hold that the impugned communication dated 18.07.2017, is un-sustainable and issued with total non-application of mind.
The petitioner contention regarding this was nothing but method adopted by respondent to find a way with an intention to make delay in refund claim made by the petitioner. Justice Sivagnanam added.
The court brought the notice of one more reason to hold that the order of transfer is not sustainable is that Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Ajantha Industries Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes) reported in (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC) followed in the case of (General Exporters Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) reported in (1998) 98 Taxman 257 (Madras).
While allowing the contentions, the court proclaimed that the transfer of the files of the petitioner to Mumbai is completely flawed, and it is contrary to statutory provisions and the same should be set aside.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
