Order of transfer of cases under section 127(2) is administrative and not quasi-judicial merely because assessee is required to be heard before the order is passed. The word 'coordinated investigation' is not vague. It has a definite meaning. The transfer order can’t be set aside merely on the ground that the transfer has been done on vague terms.
In the instant case, following issues arosed before Chattisgarh HC:
A. Whether the power of transfer under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not a judicial power?
B. Order of transfer under sec. 127(2) can’t be passed when there is denial of reasonable opportunity to the assessees?
C. Whether the word 'co-ordinated investigation' is vague and the transfer order can be set aside merely on the ground that the transfer has been done on vague terms?
Deliberating on these issues, the HC held as under:
1) Section 127(2) of the Act provides that transfer can be done only if opportunity is afforded to an assessee and after recording reasons. But merely for this reason it cannot be said to be quasi-judicial in nature;
2) The transfer order does not decide the rights of the parties in the assessment;
3) The ultimate order deciding the right is the order of the assessment which decides the basis and the tax to be paid. This order is a judicial order. The transfer order is merely for administrative reason and it cannot be said that nature of power is judicial;
4) It was not disputed that the search took place in the premises of Mahamaya group of companies, as well as residential and official premises of its directors and its employees, at different places, where incriminating documents were seized;
5) The documents were inter-connected and affected the assessment of the parties. It was necessary to see their overall effect on the assessments. It could only be done after analyzing and investigating into all the documents found at different places and not separately, for which a co-ordinated investigation was necessary. Thus, the words 'coordinated investigation' were not vague;
6) The notice had indicated the reason for transfer as 'centralisation' for 'co-ordinated investigation'. It was for this reason that order for transfer were made. There was no denial of reasonable opportunity to the assesses.
In addition to the aforesaid findings, the HC also recommended adoption of US-like 'restatement of law'
The submissions raised by the party should have been considered before arriving at the decision. But more often than not, there was an insistence on dealing with every case that was cited. Perhaps, such insistence, even if the decisions were inapplicable or irrelevant, was misplaced. It might not be proper to record in the judgement that a counsel had cited irrelevant, or inapplicable, or overruled, or already distinguished case. It would be of real help to our jurisprudence if we also adopted an approach similar to the US, about 'Restatement of Indian law' – CIT V. UNION OF INDIA [2013] 32 taxmann.com 320 (CHHATTISGARH)
In the instant case, following issues arosed before Chattisgarh HC:
A. Whether the power of transfer under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not a judicial power?
B. Order of transfer under sec. 127(2) can’t be passed when there is denial of reasonable opportunity to the assessees?
C. Whether the word 'co-ordinated investigation' is vague and the transfer order can be set aside merely on the ground that the transfer has been done on vague terms?
Deliberating on these issues, the HC held as under:
1) Section 127(2) of the Act provides that transfer can be done only if opportunity is afforded to an assessee and after recording reasons. But merely for this reason it cannot be said to be quasi-judicial in nature;
2) The transfer order does not decide the rights of the parties in the assessment;
3) The ultimate order deciding the right is the order of the assessment which decides the basis and the tax to be paid. This order is a judicial order. The transfer order is merely for administrative reason and it cannot be said that nature of power is judicial;
4) It was not disputed that the search took place in the premises of Mahamaya group of companies, as well as residential and official premises of its directors and its employees, at different places, where incriminating documents were seized;
5) The documents were inter-connected and affected the assessment of the parties. It was necessary to see their overall effect on the assessments. It could only be done after analyzing and investigating into all the documents found at different places and not separately, for which a co-ordinated investigation was necessary. Thus, the words 'coordinated investigation' were not vague;
6) The notice had indicated the reason for transfer as 'centralisation' for 'co-ordinated investigation'. It was for this reason that order for transfer were made. There was no denial of reasonable opportunity to the assesses.
In addition to the aforesaid findings, the HC also recommended adoption of US-like 'restatement of law'
The submissions raised by the party should have been considered before arriving at the decision. But more often than not, there was an insistence on dealing with every case that was cited. Perhaps, such insistence, even if the decisions were inapplicable or irrelevant, was misplaced. It might not be proper to record in the judgement that a counsel had cited irrelevant, or inapplicable, or overruled, or already distinguished case. It would be of real help to our jurisprudence if we also adopted an approach similar to the US, about 'Restatement of Indian law' – CIT V. UNION OF INDIA [2013] 32 taxmann.com 320 (CHHATTISGARH)
No comments:
Post a Comment