Rajiv Saxena Vs CIT (Bombay High Court)
Conclusion: Assessee’s transfer of case from Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT), Mumbai to be centralized with Central Circle New Delhi could not be faulted on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice, since assessee had admitted that the he had transactions with the persons whose cases were already centralized with the Delhi I-T Authority and no prejudice would be caused to assessee if he cooperated with Delhi I-T Authorities in all matters relating to the assessment.
Held: Assessee, an individual and a resident of UAE, had transactions with Indian citizens, who were subject to search operation and whose assessments were centralized with the Central Circle at New Delhi. Assessee’s case was also proposed to centralised at New Delhi. Challenging the same, assessee had approached the High Court. The Bench found that assessee responded to the show cause notice whereby he did not make out any case against transfer of the said proceedings, and accordingly AO passed an order u/s 127 transferring assessee’s case from AO in Mumbai to AO in Delhi. On such transfer, the Bench found that assessee was served with notices u/s 153A and various other notices through e-mail on assessee’s email id which was operational. As Assessee failed to comply with the notices, an order came to be passed against the Assessee u/s 271(1)(d) imposing a fine of Rs.10,000 and assessee was also subject to special audit as per an order u/s 142(2A), noted the Bench. The Bench took note of the fact that Assessee had not denied that he had transactions with such persons, as his only contention was that such transactions had not taken place in India. It was held that the Bench clarified that transfer order could not be faulted on the ground that it was in breach of the principles of natural justice, since the Assessee had admitted that the he had transactions with the persons whose cases were already centralized with the Delhi I-T Authority. The Bench also rejected Assessee’s argument that he was unaware of the transfer proceedings as the very show cause u/s 127 had indeed been received and was also responded to by Assessee. Even if the authorities passing the order inadvertently records that the reply was not filed by assessee, the Bench clarified that such mistake in the order would not endure to the benefit of assessee in the absence of any real and substantial prejudice, which assessee had grossly failed to demonstrate. Therefore, while stating that no prejudice would be caused to assessee if he cooperated with Delhi I-T Authorities in all matters relating to the assessment, the High Court dismissed assessee’s petition.
