P.A. Ahammed vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for IT Department. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P14 order issued by the Chief CIT justifying the transfer of petitioner''s file from the present AO under the IT Act to the Central Circle. Ext. P14 is issued by way of clarification pursuant to direction contained in an earlier judgment obtained by the petitioner from this Court. It is seen from Ext. P13 that cases of 18 assessees are transferred by the Chief CIT from the regular AOs to Central Circle after conducting raid and after detection of unaccounted income, The petitioner is one among the 18 assessees whose files were transferred to the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Trivandrum. When the petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext. P13 stating that the petitioner was not informed about the reason for transfer of file, this Court directed the (Chief)''CIT to consider the matter afresh and based on the said direction, the Chief CIT issued Ext. P14 which is under challenge in this original petition. While the petitioner contended that the assessment files are still with the ITO, Ward-I, Trivandrum, where petitioner is filing returns and getting assessment orders, the standing counsel submitted that even after transfer of file to the Central Circle, the petitioner kept on filing returns before the previous AO who without noticing the transfer passed intimation orders u/s 143(l)(a) of the IT Act. According to him, once the files are transferred, the AO ceases to have jurisdiction and the officer to whom the files are transferred only can make assessments.'' He has also clarified that the orders issued by mistake were recalled by the AO and communication issued by the Dy. CIT recalling the orders issued by him under mistake are produced in Court.

The main contention raised by the petitioner against transfer of file is that only "case" can be transferred under s, 127 from one officer to another officer by the Chief GIT and the same does not approve (sic-include) transfer of jurisdiction in respect of an assessee. However, Explanation to Section 127 clarifies that "case" means the entire proceedings under the Act. Therefore, this argument does not entitle the petitioner to retain assessments with the previous officer even after transfer of the raid file to another officer, This Court has taken a similar view in Redwood Hotel (P.) Ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, . The next contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that even if the raid cases were transferred to Central Circle, regular assessment should be retained with the previous AO. I do not find any provision in the Act whereunder two AOs retain concurrent jurisdiction over the same assessee. At any given point of time only one AO can have regular jurisdiction over an assessee for assessment is the scheme of the Act. Therefore, when transfer is effected, the entire files old, pending and the returns to be filed will get transferred to the officer to whom the file is transferred by the Chief CIT. Therefore, challenge against Ext. P14 is without any justification. The original petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.