REKHA VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's objection is that the Income Tax Officer Headquarters (Technical) had no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on behalf of Commissioner of Income Tax, Hazaribagh. Further the petitioner is not resident of Kolkata and notice for hearing on the issue of transfer of the case from Hazaribagh to Kolkata was served upon the neighbour lady and the petitioner vide letter dated 24th September, 2011 requested for sometime to give her stand on the question of transferring the Assessment Case to Kolkata. In spite of receipt of that request, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed order dated 18th October, 2011 transferring the petitioner's case to Kolkota. It is submitted that the said order is wholly without jurisdiction because of the reason that the Income Tax Officer, Headquarters (Technical) could not have issued notice on behalf of Commissioner of Income Tax and further the order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thirdly the order is not a reasoned order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of transfer of case was passed because of the reason that the matter was required to be considered in centralized way because of having number of group of cases in which a search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Department in the case of Naresh Kumar Group on 13.1.2010. It is submitted that thereafter assessment order was passed on 31st December. 2011 of the last six assessment year wherein the petitioner was not found having any liability of tax. It is submitted that in view of above, it is clear that writ petition has been filed after delay and for obtaining the order which may result in setting aside of the assessment order in-spite of fact that against assessment order there is no grievance of the writ petitioner in view of the statement of learned counsel for the writ petitioner himself that, in block assessment, no liability of petitioner is for any tax.

(3.) We are of the considered opinion that some matters are required to be pursued instantly and here in this case the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 15.9.2011 by filing this petition after delay of about three months and also they have challenged the order dated 18th October, 2011 passed Commissioner of Income Tax, which is also after delay of two months and the petitioner did not pursue the matter after filing of the writ petition for more than three months and during this period the proceeding has been completed at Kolkata and therefore, we do not find any reason, in the facts of the case, to interfere with the order because of such Interference will result into setting aside of order of assessment.