Cwjc/4833/2020 Of Smt. Priyanka Sinha v. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4833 of 2020 ====================================================== Smt. Priyanka Sinha, W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar, C/o Smt. Gyanshila Kumari,Flat No. 503, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna - 800001. Versus 1.Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna. 2.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Patna. 3.Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna. 4.Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6 (4), Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aman Raja, Advocate Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. SC, Income Tax For the Respondent/s: ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROYORAL JUDGMENT(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 16-10-2023 The petitioner is aggrieved with the proceedingstaken by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Patna. Noticedated 24.09.2018 is issued under Section 148 of the Income TaxAct, 1961, as against the assessee, who is assigned to theIncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jamshedpur. 2. Admittedly, the assessee is assigned to IncomeTax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jamshedpur before which Officer, she also filed the Income Tax returns for the Assessment year 2016-17, as is evident from Annexure-2. No further proceedings weretaken by the Assessing Officer, who was the Income TaxOfficer, Ward 2(3), Jamshedpur. The petitioner was then issuedwith Annexure-3 notice dated 24.09.2018, in reply to which thepetitioner specifically filed response dated 01.03.2019, which isproduced as Annexure-14 along with supplementary counteraffidavit. The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction and raisedspecific contentions against the allegations in the notice underSection 148. The petitioner before us also, specifically pointedout that there could be no proceedings taken by the Income TaxOfficer, Ward 6(4) Patna. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the IncomeTax Department referred to Section 124(3) and also theconsolidation of matters done by the Joint Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Range – 6, Patna, who has overall jurisdiction ofState of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. It is also specificallypointed out that the land, subject to a development agreement,based on which the notice was issued under Section 148 waslocated within the State of Bihar. Learned Standing Counsel alsoreferred to Section 127 for the purpose of maintaining theassessment order which according to her, has to be challenged in a proper appeal instituted and not in an application under Article226. 4. We are convinced that such a consolidation could not have been done by the Joint Commissioner of IncomeTax, Range – 6, Patna, dehors the statutory provisions. We,hence, directed the learned Standing Counsel to place a furtheraffidavit as to the power to carry out the transfer of a case, onlywith reference to the capital gains, which is alleged to have beendone by the Joint Commissioner. A supplementary counteraffidavit dated 19.09.2023 has been filed from which we extractparagraph 4. 4. That the Ld. CIT-2, Patna vide notification dated 26[th]July, 2018 passed concurrent jurisdiction order amongall assessing officer under the Joint Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Range-6, Patna in respect of assessee whoderived income by way of entering into landdevelopment agreement within the revenue district ofPatna. Subsequently, the Joint Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Range-6 Patna issued an office orderallotting cases of Land Development Agreement amongthe A.Os under his charge. Accordingly, the case of theassessee was allotted to the Income Tax officer, Ward6(4), Patna for completing assessment proceeding inher case. 5. Obviously, the Joint Commissioner seems to 4. That the Ld. CIT-2, Patna vide notification dated 26[th]July, 2018 passed concurrent jurisdiction order amongall assessing officer under the Joint Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Range-6, Patna in respect of assessee whoderived income by way of entering into landdevelopment agreement within the revenue district ofPatna. Subsequently, the Joint Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Range-6 Patna issued an office orderallotting cases of Land Development Agreement amongthe A.Os under his charge. Accordingly, the case of theassessee was allotted to the Income Tax officer, Ward6(4), Patna for completing assessment proceeding inher case. 5. Obviously, the Joint Commissioner seems to have transferred the file of the Assessee to the Income TaxOfficer Ward 6(4) Patna, on the ground that the property in relation to which the addition is threatened, was located withinthe State of Bihar, that too inside the boundaries of Patna. We,specifically notice Section 127 which clothes the PrincipalDirector General, Director General, the Principal ChiefCommissioner, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner totransfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers sub-ordinate to him, whether with or without concurrent jurisdictionto any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers also sub-ordinate to him. However, the specific mandate in Section 127 isthat the Assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity ofbeing heard in the matter wherever it is possible to do so. Thereis no circumstance brought on record which made the extensionof such an opportunity, which is also the statutory mandate, tobe impossible in the facts of the present case. Obviously, thetransfer was done behind the back of the petitioner. We find noreason to uphold the order of assessment, which was passedpursuant to a notice issued on the wrong premise of a transfermade by the Commissioner without following the principles ofnatural justice, which is specifically made a mandate in theprovision enabling such transfer. 6. We, hence, set aside the assessment orderpassed and find the notice to be wrongly issued. The Appropriate Authority would be entitled to take furtherproceedings, if it is permissible under the Act also subject to thelaws of limitation, as has been laid down in the variousprovisions under the Income Tax Act. 7. The writ petition stands allowed. (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) sharun/-AFR/NAFRNAFRCAV DATEUploading Date18.10.2023Transmission Date ( Rajiv Roy, J)