No Opportunity of Hearing to Assessee required when Transfer of Income Tax Case is within same City, Locality or Place: ITAT
The Mumbai Bench of ITAT has held that no hearing opportunity is to be given to assessee for transfer of income tax matters within the same locality, city or place
In a major decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to assessee when there is a transfer of Income Tax Case at the tribunal within the same city, locality or place. Priya Mohan Gurnani, the Assessee and Co-Founder of Moraj Group, filed a series of seven appeals covering the assessment years 2010-11 to...
In a major decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to assessee when there is a transfer of Income Tax Case at the tribunal within the same city, locality or place.
Priya Mohan Gurnani, the Assessee and Co-Founder of Moraj Group, filed a series of seven appeals covering the assessment years 2010-11 to 2016-17, addressing common issues arising from a single search and seizure action.
Both parties acknowledged that the appeals shared common grounds, facts, and circumstances across these years. Consequently, the authorized representative presented unified arguments encompassing all matters, while the departmental representative defended the lower authorities' orders with consistent arguments.
As a result, these appeals have been collectively addressed through this shared order.
The Assessee was represented by CA Pradip Kapasi and Revenue by Manoj kumar Sinha, Senior Department Representative.
The factual background reveals that Ms. Priya Mohan Gurnani, an individual assessed for income tax, earns income from various sources, including salary, house property, business, and other sources, with meticulous maintenance of regular books of accounts.
Ground number 3 is with respect to the change of jurisdiction. The claim of the assessee that the original jurisdiction is with The Income Tax Officer Ward 10 (3) 4) Mumbai and no order was passed under section 127 to transfer the case to the Deputy Commissioner of income tax, Central Circle – 5 (2) Mumbai.
Therefore, the assessee was objecting to the assessment asking for its quashing. However the fact as stated by the CIT – A clearly shows that principal Commissioner of income tax – 15 Mumbai passed an order under section 127 of the act on 14/12/2016 and the case of the assessee was centralized with the Deputy Commissioner of income tax, Central Circle – 5 (2),
Mumbai. Therefore it is not the case that there was no order passed by the principal Commissioner of income tax.
By the order under Section 127, the jurisdiction over appellant was transferred from Mumbai to another assessing officer in Mumbai. As per the provisions of Section 127 (3) of the Income Tax Act, there is no requirement of giving any opportunity of being heard before the transfer of jurisdiction within the same city.
Further, it is merely an administrative order and there is no prejudice caused to the assessee if the assessee is assessed in the same city. We find that the several judicial precedents cited by the authorized representative does not have any bearing on the issue before us.
It was observed by the bench that, “None of the cases cited shows that the transfer is within the same city, locality or place, which has been quashed. Provisions of section 127 (3) of the act clearly provides that when there is a transfer of case in the same city, locality or place, it does not require an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.”
“In view of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed”, the tribunal bench of Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member and Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member held.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
