Wp/5792/2013 Of C.krishnan v. The Income Tax Officer

DATED: 27.11.2014 Date of Reserving the OrdersDate of Pronouncing the Orders 12.11.201427.11.2014 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. SIVAGNANAM W.P. Nos.5792 & 5793 of 2013 C.Krishnan... Petitioner in both WPsVs1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I (4), Erode,2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -I, Erode,3. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Coimbatore.... Respondents in both WPs. Prayer in W.P.No.5792 of 2013 :-Petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Prohibition,prohibiting the first respondent by proceeding to deal with the caseof the petitioners as per his communication in AEKPK0579C/2010-11,dated 27.02.2013, or take up the assessment for the assessment year2010-11. Prayer in W.P.No.5793 of 2013 :-Petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, to call for the records on the files of the thirdrespondent herein in C.No.242/Centr./CIT-II/2012-13/CBE, dated21.01.2013, and quash the proceedings of the third respondent whiledirecting the said third respondent to re-transfer the case to thesecond respondent in line with the orders of the Central Board ofDirect Taxes in 1/2011(F.No.187)/12/2010-ITA-I, dated 31.01.2011 asamended by instructions No.6/2011 (F.No.187)/12/2010 ITA-1, dated08.04.2011. Amended as per order dated 9.4.2013 by VDPJ in M.P.No.3/2013 inWP.5793 of 2013. For Respondents .. Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda Sr. Standing Counsel The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one Mr.Krishnan andthe prayer sought for in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.5792 of 2012, isfor issuance of a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the firstrespondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward I -(4), Erode, by proceeding todeal with the petitioner's case in term of his communication, dated27.02.2013, or to take up the assessment for the assessment year2010-11. 2. In W.P.No.5793 of 2013, the petitioner seeks for issuance ofa Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by thethird respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Coimbatore, dated21.01.2013 and to direct the third respondent to re-transfer the caseof the petitioner to the file of the second respondent by taking noteof the instructions given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes,(CBDT), dated 31.01.2011. 3. The petitioner an individual filed his returns on 03.06.2011,disclosing taxable income of Rs.42,87,244/- before the secondrespondent. It is stated that in terms of the instructions issuedunder Section 120 of the Income Tax Act (Act), with regard to theterritorial area, persons or class of persons, income or classes ofincome, cases or class of cases, the second respondent is the properOfficer to scrutinize the returns filed by the petitioner. It isstated that the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) issuedinstructions dated 31.01.2011, under Section 119 of the Act anddirected that income of non-corporate persons with declared income ofabove Rs.15,00,000/- shall be taken up and assessed only by anOfficer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner.Income declared below Rs.15,00,000/- in mofussil area may be dealt bythe Income Tax Officer like the first respondent. This instructionwas modified by instruction dated 08.04.2011, which provide an upwardrevision of another Rs.5,00,000/- for equitable distribution. Thepecuniary limits have been revised from time to time and it issubmitted that the instructions are to be strictly followed. 4. It is submitted that the Section 127 of the Act empowers theDirector General or Chief Commissioner to transfer any case from oneor more Assessing Officer and on such transfer has to comply with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. It is submitted that the Section 127 of the Act empowers theDirector General or Chief Commissioner to transfer any case from oneor more Assessing Officer and on such transfer has to comply with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rules of natural justice for transfer outside the same city orlocality. The return filed by the petitioner with income aboveRs.30,00,000/- has to be dealt with by the Assistant Commissioner orby Deputy Commissioner in the light of the directions issued underSection 119 read with Section 120 of the Act and therefore, thepetitioner had filed his returns before the second respondent, whohas pecuniary jurisdiction over the case. It is submitted that byletter dated 27.02.2013, the third respondent issued instructions fortransfer of the petitioner's case to the file of the first respondentand no such order of transfer was served on the petitioner. For theassessment year 2009-10, the petitioner filed a return declaring aloss of Rs.2,00,00,000/- before the second respondent. The fileswere transferred by the third respondent to the first respondent, whocompleted the assessment determining a positive income and thepetitioner has filed a petition under Section 154 of the Act forrectification and the assessment is subject matter of appeal underthe Act. 5. It is submitted that the power to transfer under Section 127of the Act has to be subject to the allocation of jurisdiction underSection 119(1) read with Section 120 by the Board and it is only byvirtue of the directions of the Board, jurisdiction is vested underSection 124(1) of the Act, to be exercised within an authority.While so, a notice was served on the petitioner dated 07.02.2013,referring to an earlier notice, dated 31.07.2012, issued by thesecond respondent, directing the petitioner to appear on 12.02.2013.The petitioner appeared and filed objections questioning thejurisdiction of the first respondent. Simultaneously, arepresentation was made to the second respondent to take up theassessment, which according to the petitioner was under process withthe copy of the communication marked to the first respondent.However, the first respondent served a further notice, dated13.12.2013, stating that the case was posted on 18.02.2013, andhardly two days time was granted, since the communication wasreceived only on 16.02.2013. The petitioner submitted an applicationbefore the first respondent to resolve the jurisdiction issue and anapplication was submitted to the third respondent stating that thesummons issued by the first respondent is without jurisdiction andthe case has to be dealt with by the second respondent and requestedfor transfer of the files to the second respondent. The thirdrespondent on 04.03.2013, communicated the copy of the proceedingsdated 21.01.2013, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. This wasfollowed by a notice dated 27.02.2013, issued by the first respondentstating that if the petitioner does not submit himself to thejurisdiction of the first respondent in the case will be decidedapart from invoking penal provisions. These proceedings namely31.01.2013 and 27.02.13 are also impugned in these Writ Petitions. 6. Mr.C.Natarajan, learned Senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner submitted that the petitioner filed returns before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Mr.C.Natarajan, learned Senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner submitted that the petitioner filed returns before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent and the returns were being processed at that stageby virtue of the impugned proceedings, the first respondent has beendirected to take up the matter and aggrieved by the action, thepetitioner has approached this Court. It is submitted that threefactors are to be taken into consideration for deciding thejurisdiction of the officers and by reading of Sections 119 and 120of the Act, the jurisdiction shall vest only with the secondrespondent and infact after the returns were filed before the secondrespondent, the second respondent called for the books of accountsand commenced the assessment proceedings and it is at that stage, thethird respondent transferred the file to the first respondent. It issubmitted that the order dated 21.01.2013, impugned in W.P.No.5793 of2013, is an order under Section 127 of the Act, which empowerstransfer of cases to co-ordinate officers. By referring to thevarious provisions of the Act, namely, the definition of AssessingOfficer as defined under Section 2(7a) and Section 116 of the Act,which deals with Income Tax Authorities have its special reference toclauses (c) (d) & (e), which deals with the Assistant Commissioners,Income Tax Officers and the Inspectors of Income Tax, which are amongthe class of the Income Tax Authorities for the purpose of the Act. 7. Further reference was made to Section 117 of the Act, whichdeals with the appointment of the Income Tax Officers and Section 119of the Act regarding the power of the Board to issue instructions tosubordinate authorities. Therefore, it is submitted that theinstruction given by the Board, dated 31.01.2011 and the subsequentinstruction dated 08.04.2011 is in exercise of the statutory powerunder Section 119 of the Act and the authorities shall observe theinstruction scrupulously. It is further submitted that in terms ofthe explanation contained under Section 120(1) of the Act, thesuperior Officer's work cannot be assigned to a lower authority.Further, in terms of Section 120(3), the petitioner would fall withinthe jurisdiction of both the respondents 1 and 2 with regard to theterritorial area and with regard to income or classes of income asmentioned in clause (3), the petitioner's case would fall within thejurisdiction of second respondent in the light of the circular issuedby the Board, dated 31.01.2011, conferring jurisdiction based on thepecuniary limit. 8. Further, it is submitted that while exercising power underSection 127 of the Act, the assessee should be put on notice and thereasons have to be recorded and the respondent cannot raise the issuewhether the circular issued under Section 119 of the Act has to begiven weightage or not, since the instruction issued to subordinateauthorities and all other persons employed in the execution of theAct, shall observe and follow such orders and instructions. It wasargued that the first respondent does not have territorialjurisdiction because of allocation of work/ward as per the annexurein the official website of the department and this has been pointedout in paragraph 13 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit of the respondent. It issubmitted that the first respondent is Income Tax Officer Ward No.1(4) whereas the location of the properties, residence and source ofincome of the petitioner are situated in Income Tax Officer Ward No.1(3), Erode outside the jurisdiction of the first respondent.Therefore, it is stated that the transfer of the case to the firstrespondent is contrary to law. In the light of the abovesubmissions, prayer has been made to set aside the impugned ordersand restore the petitioner's files to the second respondent forassessment. petitioner to the counter affidavit of the respondent. It issubmitted that the first respondent is Income Tax Officer Ward No.1(4) whereas the location of the properties, residence and source ofincome of the petitioner are situated in Income Tax Officer Ward No.1(3), Erode outside the jurisdiction of the first respondent.Therefore, it is stated that the transfer of the case to the firstrespondent is contrary to law. In the light of the abovesubmissions, prayer has been made to set aside the impugned ordersand restore the petitioner's files to the second respondent forassessment. 9. Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing counsel appearingfor the Department submitted that two issues arise in the instantWrit Petition, namely, whether the order of transfer of the file fromthe second respondent to the third respondent, by order dated21.01.2013, is valid and proper and whether within the jurisdictionof the third respondent. Second issue would be whether the circularissued by the Board fixing pecuniary jurisdiction is so sacrosanctthat it will override the statute. It is submitted that both therespondents 1 and 2 are Assessing Officers and there is no dispute tothe said position and merely because the pecuniary jurisdiction hasbeen stated in the circular, cannot be stated to be a ground to denythe jurisdiction of the first respondent. By referring to theexplanation under Section 120(1) of the Act, it is submitted thatthis power is to be exercised by higher authority as directed by theBoard in respect of the powers and functions performed by the IncomeTax Authority lower in rank. In case of reverse circumstances, sub-section (5) of Section 120 of the Act clarifies the position and suchpower is for proper management. It is submitted that there is nodispute that the first respondent is lower in rank than the secondrespondent and he has been directed to consider the petitioner's fileby exercise of power under Section 120(5) read with Section 127 ofthe Act. As regards the factual justification, reference has beenmade to the averments in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit.Further, it is submitted that board's circular is only foradministrative convenience and for guidance and no malafides havebeen alleged and the assessee does not have a prerogative to choosewho should be the Assessing Officer and the file is to be assessed bythe first respondent, who is also within the same circle. 10. In reply, the learned Senior counsel laid emphasis on thelanguage employed in Section 119 and the power conferred on the Boardunder Section 120(5) of the Act and reiterated his contentions.Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has filed a rejoinderaffidavit to the counter affidavit questioning the submission thatthe respondents 1 and 2 have concurrent jurisdiction and power. Byreferring to the annexure appended to the rejoinder affidavit, it issubmitted that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for thepetitioner's accounts, namely, income from house property, businessand other source are all in Erode Ward No.1(3), whereas the first respondent is the Income Tax Officer Ward No.1(4) and by referring tothe information available in the official website of the department,it is submitted that the first respondent has no territorialjurisdiction over the petitioner/assessee. 11. By way of reply to this submission, the learned Standingcounsel submitted that the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle-I, Erode, the territorial areas assigned are ITOWard No.1(1) to (4) and the range code is 65. The first respondentis the ITO Ward No.1(4) and the range code for his jurisdiction is65. Therefore, the assessment is within the same Ward and there isno prejudice caused to the petitioner. 12. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side andperused the materials placed on record. Two questions fall for consideration:- 11. By way of reply to this submission, the learned Standingcounsel submitted that the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle-I, Erode, the territorial areas assigned are ITOWard No.1(1) to (4) and the range code is 65. The first respondentis the ITO Ward No.1(4) and the range code for his jurisdiction is65. Therefore, the assessment is within the same Ward and there isno prejudice caused to the petitioner. 12. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side andperused the materials placed on record. Two questions fall for consideration:- (i) whether by virtue of the circular issued by theBoard, dated 31.01.2011, fixing monetary limit for theofficers to deal with the cases would oust the jurisdictionof the third respondent from exercising his power totransfer the assessment file of the petitioner from thesecond respondent to the first respondent in exercise of hispower under Section 127 of the Act.(ii) whether the first respondent has jurisdiction todeal with the petitioner's assessment files and whether hehas concurrent jurisdiction with that of the secondrespondent. 13. The circular dated 31.01.2011, has been issued by the Boardin exercise of its power under Section 119 of the Act, which givesinstruction regarding income limits for assigning cases to the DeputyCommissioners/Assistant Commissioners/ITOs. It was pointed out bythe Board that references have been received from large number of thetax payers especially from mofussil areas that the existing monetarylimits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship tothe taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to DC/AC whois located in different station, which increases their cost ofcompliance. The Board therefore considered the matter and opinedthat the existing limit needs to be revised to remove the hardshipreferred to therein. Further, the Board opined that increase intheir monetary limit is also considered desirable in view of theincrease in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when theearlier income limits were introduced. Therefore, for non-corporatereturns in mofussil area, the ITOs were assigned cases uptoRs.15,00,000/- and the Assistant Commissioners and DeputyCommissioners above Rs.15,00,000/-. Subsequently, by anotherinstruction dated 08.04.2011, the earlier instruction was reconsidered and it was decided that if the application of the limitsmentioned in the instruction dated 31.01.2011, leads to substantiallyuneven distribution of workload between DCs/ACs and ITOs, theCCIT/DGIT may adjust the limits by an amount upto Rs.5,00,000/- toensure that the workload is equitably distributed amongst theAssessing Officers after recording reasons in this regard. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala FinancialCorporation vs. CIT, reported in [1994] 210 ITR 129 (SC), and in UCOBank vs. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC), pointed out thatthe Board cannot issue circulars overriding, modifying or in effectamending the provisions of the Act. The circular issued by theCentral Board though binding on the Assessing Officer in mattersrelating to general interpretation, the circular cannot deal withspecific cases or override the judicial decisions. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala FinancialCorporation vs. CIT, reported in [1994] 210 ITR 129 (SC), and in UCOBank vs. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC), pointed out thatthe Board cannot issue circulars overriding, modifying or in effectamending the provisions of the Act. The circular issued by theCentral Board though binding on the Assessing Officer in mattersrelating to general interpretation, the circular cannot deal withspecific cases or override the judicial decisions. 15. On a reading of the Section 119 of the Act, it is seen thatthe said provision empowers the Board to issue orders, instructionsand directions to other Income Tax Authorities for the properadministration of the Act and such authorities shall observe andfollow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board.Proviso under Section 119(1) states that no such orders, instructionsor directions shall be issued to direct the Income Tax Officer tomake a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in aparticular manner or to interfere with the discretion of theCommissioner (Appeals) in exercise of his appellate functions.Therefore, there is a distinction between an order issued by theBoard, an instruction given by the Board and a direction issued bythe Board to the Income Tax Authorities and none of this caninterfere with the right of the Income Tax Authority, while making anassessment proceedings or by the Commissioner (Appeals) whileexercising appellate functions. 16. Admittedly, the proceedings dated 31.01.2011/08.04.2011 areinstructions and are not orders or circulars. An instruction issued,cannot obliterate or deny the powers of the Director General or theChief Commissioner or the Commissioner to exercise power of transferunder Section 127 of the Act. The object of Section 127 of the Actis to empower the officers at the level of Director General or ChiefCommissioner or Commissioner with the power to transfer theAssessee's files from one or more Assessing Officers to any otherAssessing Officers or Assessing Officers both being subordinate tohim. This power of transfer is given by the statute for theadministrative convenience and the power is one which is exercisablequite apart from and independent of the requirements under Section124 of the Act, which deals with jurisdiction of the AssessingOfficers [see Ramasamy Asari vs. ITO, [1964]51 ITR 57 Madras]. TheCommissioner has jurisdiction to transfer cases only within hisjurisdiction whereas the power of the board is wider and it cantransfer the cases from one jurisdiction of one Commissioner to another. The exercise of the power by the Commissioner does notexhaust the power of the transfer by the Board and the Board hasindependent power under Section 127 of the Act to transfer cases.Therefore, as long as the conditions which are required to befulfilled for exercising jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Actare available and made out an instruction given by the Board underSection 119 of the Act, cannot mitigate against the power of theCommissioner to exercise power under Section 127 of the Act totransfer the case from one Income Tax Officer to another. 17. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitionerplaced reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thecase of State of Kerala vs. Kurian Abraham reported in (2008) 3 SCC582, State of Tamil Nadu vs. India Cements Limited reported in (2011)13 SCC 247; Catholic Syrian Bank Limited vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax reported in (2012) 343 ITR 270; and the decision of the Hon'bleDivision Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. G.Chandrareported in [2010] 326 ITR 336. UCO Bank vs. CIT. 17. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitionerplaced reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thecase of State of Kerala vs. Kurian Abraham reported in (2008) 3 SCC582, State of Tamil Nadu vs. India Cements Limited reported in (2011)13 SCC 247; Catholic Syrian Bank Limited vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax reported in (2012) 343 ITR 270; and the decision of the Hon'bleDivision Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. G.Chandrareported in [2010] 326 ITR 336. UCO Bank vs. CIT. 18. In the case of Kurian Abraham (referred supra), the Hon'bleSupreme Court considered the question as to whether in exercise ofthe power under Section 3(1-A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Actconfers power on the Board to issue orders or notifications, whichmay partake the character of legislative exercise. While consideringthe said question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that theprovision of the Section 31(3)(1A) of the Kerala Act is similar tothe provision of Section 119(1) of the Income Tax Act, inasmuch asboth the Sections have used the expression for the properadministration of the Act. After taking note of the decision in thecase of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan reported in (2004) 10SCC 1, held that these circular is binding on the officersadministrating in the law working under the Board of Revenue and itis not open for them to say that the circular is not binding on them.Firstly, it has to be pointed out that the decision refers to acircular under the Kerala Sales Tax Act and the decision has beenrendered by drawing an analogy with Section 119 of the Income Tax Actowing to its similarity. However, the decision does not refer toSection 127 of the Act, which provision was invoked while passing theimpugned order of transfer of the file. Further, as pointed out thatthe proceedings dated 31.01.2011, appears to be an instruction andnot in the nature of the circular or order. Hence, the decision isdistinguishable on facts. 19. As regards the decision in the case of State of Tamil Naduvs. India Cements Limited (supra), the question which arose forconsideration with regard to the grant of interest free sales taxloan etc., to promote industrialisation in the State in 105 Taluks ofthe State, which were industrially backward Taluks and the Hon'bleSupreme Court took into consideration the effect of the circularwhich contemplates liability to pay tax with reference to Base Production Volume or Base Sales Volume whichever is reached earlierand the liability for deferral is only with reference to volume ofSales and not with reference to taxes paid on sales for the baseyear. While considering the effect of such circular, it was pointedout that the circular is binding in law on the AdjudicatingAuthority, as the circular is not in conflict with any of thestatutory provision. In my view, the decision was rendered on whollya different set of facts and cannot be applied to the facts of thepresent case, in which the file stood transferred to the firstrespondent in exercise under statutory power conferred on the thirdrespondent under Section 127 of the Act, which confers power on theCommissioner. Production Volume or Base Sales Volume whichever is reached earlierand the liability for deferral is only with reference to volume ofSales and not with reference to taxes paid on sales for the baseyear. While considering the effect of such circular, it was pointedout that the circular is binding in law on the AdjudicatingAuthority, as the circular is not in conflict with any of thestatutory provision. In my view, the decision was rendered on whollya different set of facts and cannot be applied to the facts of thepresent case, in which the file stood transferred to the firstrespondent in exercise under statutory power conferred on the thirdrespondent under Section 127 of the Act, which confers power on theCommissioner. 20. In the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited vs. Commissionerof Income Tax (supra), while dealing with the effect of circulars,the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that under Section 119 of theAct, circulars can be issued by the Board to explain or tone down therigours of law and to ensure fair enforcement of its provision andthe circulars have force of law and are binding on the Income TaxAuthorities, though they cannot be enforced adversely against theassessee and normally, the circulars cannot be ignored. It wasfurther pointed out that circular may not override or detract fromthe provisions of the Act, but it can seek to mitigate the rigour ofa particular provision for the benefit of the assessee in certainspecified circumstances. Further, so long as the circular is inforce, it aids the uniform and proper administration and applicationof the provisions of the Act. As pointed out by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt, a circular may not override or detract from the provisions ofthe Act, but it can seek to mitigate the rigour of a particularprovision for the benefit of the assessee in certain specifiedcircumstances. If the interpretation putforth by the petitioner isto be acceded, then the resultant position would be power of theCommissioner under Section 127 of the Act by virtue of theinstruction issued under Section 119 of the Act, would virtuallystand negatived. This is not the intention of the legislation northe scope of the instruction issued and infact, the view taken bythis Court is in consonance with the observations made by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited vs.Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). 21. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of CITvs. G.Chandra (supra) was considering the effect of circular dated27.03.2000, issued by the CBDT, prescribing monetary limit for filingappeals before the High Court. On facts, the Revenue was unable topoint out to the Court that the case of the assessee falls within theexception provided in the circular. In any event, in the saiddecision, the power exercisable by the Commissioner under Section 127of the Act, vis-a-vis, the instruction issued by the Board under Section 119 of the Act. did not arise for consideration andtherefore, the decision does not render support to the facts of thepresent case. 21. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of CITvs. G.Chandra (supra) was considering the effect of circular dated27.03.2000, issued by the CBDT, prescribing monetary limit for filingappeals before the High Court. On facts, the Revenue was unable topoint out to the Court that the case of the assessee falls within theexception provided in the circular. In any event, in the saiddecision, the power exercisable by the Commissioner under Section 127of the Act, vis-a-vis, the instruction issued by the Board under Section 119 of the Act. did not arise for consideration andtherefore, the decision does not render support to the facts of thepresent case. 22. In decision in the case of Kiran Singh vs. Chaman, Paswan &Ors., reported in AIR 1954 SC 340, has been relied on for theproposition that a decree passed by the Court without jurisdiction isa nullity and its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever itis sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage ofexecution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect ofjurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether itis in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at thevery authority of the Court to pass any decree and such a defectcannot be cured even by consent of parties. In my view, thedecision relied on is wholly in applicable to the facts of thepresent case, as it arose out of a proceedings under the SuitValuation Act and the question was with regard to the construction ofthe Section 11 of the Act. In the light of the above discussion, thefirst question is answered against the assessee. 23. Further, the case of the petitioner is that the income ofthe petitioner has been assessed under three heads namely, incomefrom house property, business income and other sources. It waspointed out that the properties are owned by the petitioner aresituated in Erode and the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is ErodeWard No.1(3). This is stated based on the particulars of income ofthe petitioner, which appears to be from the return of income filed.The tax information network of the Income Tax Department, haspublishedatabulatedstatementmentioningtheWard/Circle/Range/Commissioner, description, area code, AO type,Range Code and AO number. The petitioner's contention is that thefirst respondent is the Income Tax Officer of Ward No.1(4) and theproperties of the petitioner are situated within the jurisdiction ofthe Assessing Officer, Erode, Ward No.1(3). However, on a perusal ofthe information published in the Tax information tabulated the circleis Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle No.1, Erode and theterritorial areas have been assigned to Income Tax Officers Ward No.1(1) to (4). The Range code for the said circle is 65 and the A.O.Number is 1. Therefore, it is seen that four wards, which are withinthe territorial area namely, Ward No.1(1) to 1(4) fall within thesame circle namely, DCIT Circle No.1, Erode. Therefore, it isincorrect on the part of the petitioner to state that the firstrespondent has no territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the rangecode which has been allotted to all the four wards in DCIT circleNo.1 is 65. Hence, this contention raised by the petitioner does notmerit acceptance. 24. In the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT, (supra), the Hon'bleSupreme Court pointed out that CBDT under Section 119 of the Act haspower, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a 24. In the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT, (supra), the Hon'bleSupreme Court pointed out that CBDT under Section 119 of the Act haspower, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exerciseof its statutory powers under Section 119 of the Act, which arebinding on the authorities in the administration of the Act.Further, it was pointed out that under Section 119(2)(a), thecirculars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee.The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficientmanagement of the work of assessment and in public interest. It is abeneficial power given to the Board for proper administration offiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assesseeand the fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Further, it waspointed out that such circulars are not meant for contradicting ornullifying any provision of the statute and they are meant forensuring proper administration of the statute. 25. Having seen the effect of a circular or a direction or anorder issued under Section 119 of the Act, it necessarily followsthat such circular cannot mitigate against the power under Section127 of the Act. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated thatthe transfer is done as provided under Section 127 of the Act withsole intention of maintaining equitable distribution of workloadamong available Assessing Officer and at the same time causingminimal hardship to the petitioner. It is pointed out that for thefinancial year 2012-13, workload among various Assessing Officer wereundue and as per the CAP-II reports for the month of February, 2013,the workload for the second respondent was 168 time baring cases ofwhich, 112 were disposed of and the balance upto February 2013 was56, whereas for the first respondent, the total time baring casespending on the beginning of the year was 28, of which 11 weredisposed of and 17 were pending. Further, it is submitted that theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II is vacant and onlyone Officer is holding both the authorities of the AssistantCommissioner of Circle I and Circle II, Erode. Therefore on thebasis of request received from the range head namely, JointCommissioner Income Tax Circle-II, three cases including thepetitioner's case, were transferred for effective and timelycompletion of scrutiny assessment proceedings, to make equitabledistribution of workload. Further, it is submitted that the firstrespondent has completed earlier assessment proceedings of thepetitioner for the assessment year 2009-10, in which certaindirections has been given by the Commissioner of Income Tax Officer(Appeals)-I regarding recomputing derivative laws. Therefore, it isclear that there is no inconvenience caused to the assessee. 26. Further, it is to be seen as to whether the instructionissued with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction issued by the Boardfrom time to time is as sacrosanct and cannot be amended. 27. It is seen that after the issuance of the instruction dated31.01.2011, a subsequent instruction was given on 08.04.2011. Thesaid instruction modifies the earlier instruction dated 31.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 26. Further, it is to be seen as to whether the instructionissued with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction issued by the Boardfrom time to time is as sacrosanct and cannot be amended. 27. It is seen that after the issuance of the instruction dated31.01.2011, a subsequent instruction was given on 08.04.2011. Thesaid instruction modifies the earlier instruction dated 31.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and vests a discretion to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax andthe Director General of Income Tax to adjust the monetary limits byan amount upto Rs.5,00,000/-, and the purpose for giving suchdiscretion is to ensure that the workload is equitably distributedamongs the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the monetary limit fixed inthe instruction dated 31.01.2011, was not a rigid limit. This ismanifest from the subsequent instruction dated 08.04.2011, which hasgiven discretion to the Chief Commissioner and Director General toadjust the limits. The underlining object of the instructions isequitable distribution of work. It is seen that the amendedinstruction dated 08.04.2011 itself, came to be issued, as ChiefCommissioners have expressed the view that the limits fixed in theinstruction dated 31.01.2011, if strictly enforced would lead tounequal distribution of workload between Assistant Commissioner andIncome Tax Officers. Therefore, the Board re-considered the matter.The impugned order of transfer of the file of the petitioner to thefirst respondent states that the impugned proceedings has been passedfor administrative convenience and apart from the petitioner's case,two other cases have also been transferred. The purpose for suchtransfer has been elucidated in the counter affidavit. Furthermore,there is no malafide alleged as against the first respondent, thougha faint plea was raised at the time of arguments, but neverthelessnot pursued, since there was no such averments in the affidavit northe concerned officer was impleaded in his personal capacity. In the result, these Writ Petitions fail and the same aredismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed. pbn -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) Dt:8/12/2014 True Copy To 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I (4), Erode,2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -I, Erode,3. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Coimbatore. + 1 cc to Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda, Advocate SR 57273+ 1 cc to Mr.M.Inbarajan, Advocate SR 57095br(Co)prk10/12 W.P. Nos.5792 & 5793 of 2013