SURYA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition relates to the validity of an order by which the income tax assessment proceedings qua the petitioner have been transferred from Delhi to Chandigarh. The question precisely is whether the transfer of the proceedings to Chandigarh is bad even when the petitioner's corporate office is situated in Chandigarh and all its manufacturing units are situated in the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner insists that no matter only one out of a total work force of 400 and odd employees is posted in Delhi, the assessments should have been allowed to continue in Delhi. The controversy arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated at Delhi having its Head Office at Delhi at 159, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Its registered office is at 85, HPSIDC Industrial Estate Badi (HP), which is now in the process of being shifted back to Delhi vide special resolution dated 28th January, 2006 passed by the Board of Directors. The petitioner company used to file its income tax returns at Delhi from the assessment year 1993-1994. The tax audit reports were also filed in time with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 9 (1), New Delhi. Due to administrative reasons the registered office of the company was shifted to Badi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh on 28th July, 2000. The petitioner is having its factories, offices at Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Chandigarh. It has corporate office only at Chandigarh. The petitioner has already assessed to tax at Delhi for the last 13 years and the jurisdiction has never been transferred to any other place.

(3.) According to the respondent the assessee had not filed its return either in Delhi or Chandigarh under Sections 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 30.11.2005 for assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, when admittedly time for filing voluntary return under Section 139 clause (1) had expired on 31.10.2004 and 31.10.2005 respectively. As a matter of fact, a survey was conducted by the Income Tax Department in the premises of the petitioner at Chandigarh on 30.11.2005. Mr. Rajeev Goyal, Managing Director of the petitioner's company, made the following statement.