C.Krishnan v. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-I (4), Erode / The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -I, Erode / .The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Coimbatore
[Citation -2014-LL-1127-31]

Citation 2014-LL-1127-31
Appellant Name C.Krishnan
Respondent Name The Income-tax Officer, Ward-I (4), Erode / The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -I, Erode / .The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Coimbatore
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 27/11/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags income from house property • concurrent jurisdiction • source of income • positive income • natural justice • monetary limit • other source • sales tax
Bot Summary: CIT-II/2012-13/CBE, dated 21.01.2013, and quash the proceedings of the third respondent while directing the said third respondent to re-transfer the case to the second respondent in line with the orders of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in 1/2011(F.No. 5793 of 2013, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the 3 third respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Coimbatore, dated 21.01.2013 and to direct the third respondent to re-transfer the case of the petitioner to the file of the second respondent by taking note of the instructions given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes,, dated 31.01.2011. The files were transferred by the third respondent to the first respondent, who completed the assessment determining a positive income and the petitioner has filed a petition 5 under Section 154 of the Act for rectification and the assessment is subject matter of appeal under the Act. The petitioner submitted an application before the first respondent to resolve the jurisdiction issue and an application was submitted to the third respondent stating that the 6 summons issued by the first respondent is without jurisdiction and the case has to be dealt with by the second respondent and requested for transfer of the files to the second respondent. Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that two issues arise in the instant Writ Petition, namely, whether the order of transfer of the file from the second respondent to the third respondent, by order dated 21.01.2013, is valid and proper and whether within the jurisdiction of the third respondent. Two questions fall for consideration:- 12 whether by virtue of the circular issued by the Board, dated 31.01.2011, fixing monetary limit for the officers to deal with the cases would oust the jurisdiction of the third respondent from exercising his power to transfer the assessment file of the petitioner from the second respondent to the first respondent in exercise of his power under Section 127 of the Act. In my view, the decision was rendered on wholly a different set of facts and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, in which the file stood transferred to the first respondent in exercise under statutory power conferred on the third respondent under Section 127 of the Act, which confers power on the Commissioner.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.11.2014 Date of Reserving Orders Date of Pronouncing Orders 12.11.2014 27.11.2014 Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. SIVAGNANAM W.P. Nos.5792 & 5793 of 2013 C.Krishnan Petitioner Vs 1.The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I (4), Erode, 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -I, Erode, 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Coimbatore. Respondents Prayer in W.P.No.5792 of 2013 :-Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue writ of Prohibition, prohibiting first respondent by proceeding to deal with case of petitioners as per his communication in AEKPK0579C/2010-11, dated 27.02.2013, or take up assessment for assessment year 2010-11. 2 Prayer in W.P.No.5793 of 2013 :-Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records on files of third respondent herein in C.No.242/Centr./CIT-II/2012-13/CBE, dated 21.01.2013, and quash proceedings of third respondent while directing said third respondent to re-transfer case to second respondent in line with orders of Central Board of Direct Taxes in 1/2011(F.No.187)/12/2010-ITA-I, dated 31.01.2011 as amended by instructions No.6/2011 (F.No.187)/12/2010 ITA-1, dated 08.04.2011. For petitioner .. Mr.C.Natarajan Sr. Counsel for Mr.N.Inbarajan For Respondents .. Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda Sr. Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER petitioner in both Writ Petitions is one Mr.Krishnan and prayer sought for in Writ Petition in W.P.No.5792 of 2012, is for issuance of Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting first respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward I -(4), Erode, by proceeding to deal with petitioner's case in term of his communication, dated 27.02.2013, or to take up assessment for assessment year 2010-11. 2. In W.P.No.5793 of 2013, petitioner seeks for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash order passed by 3 third respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Coimbatore, dated 21.01.2013 and to direct third respondent to re-transfer case of petitioner to file of second respondent by taking note of instructions given by Central Board of Direct Taxes, (CBDT), dated 31.01.2011. 3. petitioner individual filed his returns on 03.06.2011, disclosing taxable income of Rs.42,87,244/- before second respondent. It is stated that in terms of instructions issued under Section 120 of Income Tax Act (Act), with regard to territorial area, persons or class of persons, income or classes of income, cases or class of cases, second respondent is proper Officer to scrutinize returns filed by petitioner. It is stated that Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) issued instructions dated 31.01.2011, under Section 119 of Act and directed that income of non-corporate persons with declared income of above Rs.15,00,000/- shall be taken up and assessed only by Officer of rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. Income declared below Rs.15,00,000/- in mofussil area may be dealt by Income Tax Officer like first respondent. This instruction was modified by instruction dated 08.04.2011, which provide upward revision of 4 another Rs.5,00,000/- for equitable distribution. pecuniary limits have been revised from time to time and it is submitted that instructions are to be strictly followed. 4. It is submitted that Section 127 of Act empowers Director General or Chief Commissioner to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officer and on such transfer has to comply with rules of natural justice for transfer outside same city or locality. return filed by petitioner with income above Rs.30,00,000/- has to be dealt with by Assistant Commissioner or by Deputy Commissioner in light of directions issued under Section 119 read with Section 120 of Act and therefore, petitioner had filed his returns before second respondent, who has pecuniary jurisdiction over case. It is submitted that by letter dated 27.02.2013, third respondent issued instructions for transfer of petitioner's case to file of first respondent and no such order of transfer was served on petitioner. For assessment year 2009- 10, petitioner filed return declaring loss of Rs.2,00,00,000/- before second respondent. files were transferred by third respondent to first respondent, who completed assessment determining positive income and petitioner has filed petition 5 under Section 154 of Act for rectification and assessment is subject matter of appeal under Act. 5. It is submitted that power to transfer under Section 127 of Act has to be subject to allocation of jurisdiction under Section 119(1) read with Section 120 by Board and it is only by virtue of directions of Board, jurisdiction is vested under Section 124(1) of Act, to be exercised within authority. While so, notice was served on petitioner dated 07.02.2013, referring to earlier notice, dated 31.07.2012, issued by second respondent, directing petitioner to appear on 12.02.2013. petitioner appeared and filed objections questioning jurisdiction of first respondent. Simultaneously, representation was made to second respondent to take up assessment, which according to petitioner was under process with copy of communication marked to first respondent. However, first respondent served further notice, dated 13.12.2013, stating that case was posted on 18.02.2013, and hardly two days time was granted, since communication was received only on 16.02.2013. petitioner submitted application before first respondent to resolve jurisdiction issue and application was submitted to third respondent stating that 6 summons issued by first respondent is without jurisdiction and case has to be dealt with by second respondent and requested for transfer of files to second respondent. third respondent on 04.03.2013, communicated copy of proceedings dated 21.01.2013, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. This was followed by notice dated 27.02.2013, issued by first respondent stating that if petitioner does not submit himself to jurisdiction of first respondent in case will be decided apart from invoking penal provisions. These proceedings namely 31.01.2013 and 27.02.13 are also impugned in these Writ Petitions. 6. Mr.C.Natarajan, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner filed returns before second respondent and returns were being processed at that stage by virtue of impugned proceedings, first respondent has been directed to take up matter and aggrieved by action, petitioner has approached this Court. It is submitted that three factors are to be taken into consideration for deciding jurisdiction of officers and by reading of Sections 119 and 120 of Act, jurisdiction shall vest only with second respondent and infact after returns were filed before second respondent, second 7 respondent called for books of accounts and commenced assessment proceedings and it is at that stage, third respondent transferred file to first respondent. It is submitted that order dated 21.01.2013, impugned in W.P.No.5793 of 2013, is order under Section 127 of Act, which empowers transfer of cases to co-ordinate officers. By referring to various provisions of Act, namely, definition of Assessing Officer as defined under Section 2(7a) and Section 116 of Act, which deals with Income Tax Authorities have its special reference to clauses (c) (d) & (e), which deals with Assistant Commissioners, Income Tax Officers and Inspectors of Income Tax, which are among class of Income Tax Authorities for purpose of Act. 7. Further reference was made to Section 117 of Act, which deals with appointment of Income Tax Officers and Section 119 of Act regarding power of Board to issue instructions to subordinate authorities. Therefore, it is submitted that instruction given by Board, dated 31.01.2011 and subsequent instruction dated 08.04.2011 is in exercise of statutory power under Section 119 of Act and authorities shall observe instruction scrupulously. It is further submitted that in terms of explanation 8 contained under Section 120(1) of Act, superior Officer's work cannot be assigned to lower authority. Further, in terms of Section 120(3), petitioner would fall within jurisdiction of both respondents 1 and 2 with regard to territorial area and with regard to income or classes of income as mentioned in clause (3), petitioner's case would fall within jurisdiction of second respondent in light of circular issued by Board, dated 31.01.2011, conferring jurisdiction based on pecuniary limit. 8. Further, it is submitted that while exercising power under Section 127 of Act, assessee should be put on notice and reasons have to be recorded and respondent cannot raise issue whether circular issued under Section 119 of Act has to be given weightage or not, since instruction issued to subordinate authorities and all other persons employed in execution of Act, shall observe and follow such orders and instructions. It was argued that first respondent does not have territorial jurisdiction because of allocation of work/ward as per annexure in official website of department and this has been pointed out in paragraph 13 of rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioner to counter affidavit of respondent. It is submitted that first respondent is Income Tax 9 Officer Ward No.1(4) whereas location of properties, residence and source of income of petitioner are situated in Income Tax Officer Ward No.1(3), Erode outside jurisdiction of first respondent. Therefore, it is stated that transfer of case to first respondent is contrary to law. In light of above submissions, prayer has been made to set aside impugned orders and restore petitioner's files to second respondent for assessment. 9. Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing counsel appearing for Department submitted that two issues arise in instant Writ Petition, namely, whether order of transfer of file from second respondent to third respondent, by order dated 21.01.2013, is valid and proper and whether within jurisdiction of third respondent. Second issue would be whether circular issued by Board fixing pecuniary jurisdiction is so sacrosanct that it will override statute. It is submitted that both respondents 1 and 2 are Assessing Officers and there is no dispute to said position and merely because pecuniary jurisdiction has been stated in circular, cannot be stated to be ground to deny jurisdiction of first respondent. By referring to explanation under Section 10 120(1) of Act, it is submitted that this power is to be exercised by higher authority as directed by Board in respect of powers and functions performed by Income Tax Authority lower in rank. In case of reverse circumstances, sub-section (5) of Section 120 of Act clarifies position and such power is for proper management. It is submitted that there is no dispute that first respondent is lower in rank than second respondent and he has been directed to consider petitioner's file by exercise of power under Section 120(5) read with Section 127 of Act. As regards factual justification, reference has been made to averments in paragraph 12 of counter affidavit. Further, it is submitted that board's circular is only for administrative convenience and for guidance and no malafides have been alleged and assessee does not have prerogative to choose who should be Assessing Officer and file is to be assessed by first respondent, who is also within same circle. 10. In reply, learned Senior counsel laid emphasis on language employed in Section 119 and power conferred on Board under Section 120(5) of Act and reiterated his contentions. Further, it is submitted that petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit to counter affidavit questioning submission that 11 respondents 1 and 2 have concurrent jurisdiction and power. By referring to annexure appended to rejoinder affidavit, it is submitted that jurisdictional Assessing Officer for petitioner's accounts, namely, income from house property, business and other source are all in Erode Ward No.1(3), whereas first respondent is Income Tax Officer Ward No.1(4) and by referring to information available in official website of department, it is submitted that first respondent has no territorial jurisdiction over petitioner/assessee. 11. By way of reply to this submission, learned Standing counsel submitted that jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Erode, territorial areas assigned are ITO Ward No.1(1) to (4) and range code is 65. first respondent is ITO Ward No.1(4) and range code for his jurisdiction is 65. Therefore, assessment is within same Ward and there is no prejudice caused to petitioner. 12. Heard learned counsels appearing on either side and perused materials placed on record. Two questions fall for consideration:- 12 (i) whether by virtue of circular issued by Board, dated 31.01.2011, fixing monetary limit for officers to deal with cases would oust jurisdiction of third respondent from exercising his power to transfer assessment file of petitioner from second respondent to first respondent in exercise of his power under Section 127 of Act. (ii) whether first respondent has jurisdiction to deal with petitioner's assessment files and whether he has concurrent jurisdiction with that of second respondent. 13. circular dated 31.01.2011, has been issued by Board in exercise of its power under Section 119 of Act, which gives instruction regarding income limits for assigning cases to Deputy Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners/ITOs. It was pointed out by Board that references have been received from large number of tax payers especially from mofussil areas that existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship to taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to DC/AC who is located in different station, which increases their cost of 13 compliance. Board therefore considered matter and opined that existing limit needs to be revised to remove hardship referred to therein. Further, Board opined that increase in their monetary limit is also considered desirable in view of increase in scale of trade and industry since 2001, when earlier income limits were introduced. Therefore, for non-corporate returns in mofussil area, ITOs were assigned cases upto Rs.15,00,000/- and Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners above Rs.15,00,000/-. Subsequently, by another instruction dated 08.04.2011, earlier instruction was reconsidered and it was decided that if application of limits mentioned in instruction dated 31.01.2011, leads to substantially uneven distribution of workload between DCs/ACs and ITOs, CCIT/DGIT may adjust limits by amount upto Rs.5,00,000/- to ensure that workload is equitably distributed amongst Assessing Officers after recording reasons in this regard. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, reported in [1994] 210 ITR 129 (SC), and in UCO Bank vs. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC), pointed out that Board cannot issue circulars overriding, modifying or in 14 effect amending provisions of Act. circular issued by Central Board though binding on Assessing Officer in matters relating to general interpretation, circular cannot deal with specific cases or override judicial decisions. 15. On reading of Section 119 of Act, it is seen that said provision empowers Board to issue orders, instructions and directions to other Income Tax Authorities for proper administration of Act and such authorities shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of Board. Proviso under Section 119(1) states that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued to direct Income Tax Officer to make particular assessment or to dispose of particular case in particular manner or to interfere with discretion of Commissioner (Appeals) in exercise of his appellate functions. Therefore, there is distinction between order issued by Board, instruction given by Board and direction issued by Board to Income Tax Authorities and none of this can interfere with right of Income Tax Authority, while making assessment proceedings or by Commissioner (Appeals) while exercising appellate functions. 16. Admittedly, proceedings dated 31.01.2011/08.04.2011 15 are instructions and are not orders or circulars. instruction issued, cannot obliterate or deny powers of Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to exercise power of transfer under Section 127 of Act. object of Section 127 of Act is to empower officers at level of Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner with power to transfer Assessee's files from one or more Assessing Officers to any other Assessing Officers or Assessing Officers both being subordinate to him. This power of transfer is given by statute for administrative convenience and power is one which is exercisable quite apart from and independent of requirements under Section 124 of Act, which deals with jurisdiction of Assessing Officers [see Ramasamy Asari vs. ITO, [1964]51 ITR 57 Madras]. Commissioner has jurisdiction to transfer cases only within his jurisdiction whereas power of board is wider and it can transfer cases from one jurisdiction of one Commissioner to another. exercise of power by Commissioner does not exhaust power of transfer by Board and Board has independent power under Section 127 of Act to transfer cases. Therefore, as long as conditions which are required to be fulfilled for exercising jurisdiction under Section 127 of Act are available and made out 16 instruction given by Board under Section 119 of Act, cannot mitigate against power of Commissioner to exercise power under Section 127 of Act to transfer case from one Income Tax Officer to another. 17. learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Kerala vs. Kurian Abraham reported in (2008) 3 SCC 582, State of Tamil Nadu vs. India Cements Limited reported in (2011) 13 SCC 247; Catholic Syrian Bank Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2012) 343 ITR 270; and decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of CIT vs. G.Chandra reported in [2010] 326 ITR 336. UCO Bank vs. CIT. 18. In case of Kurian Abraham (referred supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court considered question as to whether in exercise of power under Section 3(1-A) of Kerala General Sales Tax Act confers power on Board to issue orders or notifications, which may partake character of legislative exercise. While considering said question, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed 17 that provision of Section 31(3)(1A) of Kerala Act is similar to provision of Section 119(1) of Income Tax Act, inasmuch as both Sections have used expression for proper administration of Act. After taking note of decision in case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan reported in (2004) 10 SCC 1, held that these circular is binding on officers administrating in law working under Board of Revenue and it is not open for them to say that circular is not binding on them. Firstly, it has to be pointed out that decision refers to circular under Kerala Sales Tax Act and decision has been rendered by drawing analogy with Section 119 of Income Tax Act owing to its similarity. However, decision does not refer to Section 127 of Act, which provision was invoked while passing impugned order of transfer of file. Further, as pointed out that proceedings dated 31.01.2011, appears to be instruction and not in nature of circular or order. Hence, decision is distinguishable on facts. 19. As regards decision in case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. India Cements Limited (supra), question which arose for consideration with regard to grant of interest free sales tax loan etc., to promote industrialisation in State in 105 Taluks of 18 State, which were industrially backward Taluks and Hon'ble Supreme Court took into consideration effect of circular which contemplates liability to pay tax with reference to Base Production Volume or Base Sales Volume whichever is reached earlier and liability for deferral is only with reference to volume of Sales and not with reference to taxes paid on sales for base year. While considering effect of such circular, it was pointed out that circular is binding in law on Adjudicating Authority, as circular is not in conflict with any of statutory provision. In my view, decision was rendered on wholly different set of facts and cannot be applied to facts of present case, in which file stood transferred to first respondent in exercise under statutory power conferred on third respondent under Section 127 of Act, which confers power on Commissioner. 20. In case of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), while dealing with effect of circulars, Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that under Section 119 of Act, circulars can be issued by Board to explain or tone down rigours of law and to ensure fair enforcement of its provision and circulars have force of law and are binding on Income Tax 19 Authorities, though they cannot be enforced adversely against assessee and normally, circulars cannot be ignored. It was further pointed out that circular may not override or detract from provisions of Act, but it can seek to mitigate rigour of particular provision for benefit of assessee in certain specified circumstances. Further, so long as circular is in force, it aids uniform and proper administration and application of provisions of Act. As pointed out by Hon'ble Supreme Court, circular may not override or detract from provisions of Act, but it can seek to mitigate rigour of particular provision for benefit of assessee in certain specified circumstances. If interpretation putforth by petitioner is to be acceded, then resultant position would be power of Commissioner under Section 127 of Act by virtue of instruction issued under Section 119 of Act, would virtually stand negatived. This is not intention of legislation nor scope of instruction issued and infact, view taken by this Court is in consonance with observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). 21. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of CIT 20 vs. G.Chandra (supra) was considering effect of circular dated 27.03.2000, issued by CBDT, prescribing monetary limit for filing appeals before High Court. On facts, Revenue was unable to point out to Court that case of assessee falls within exception provided in circular. In any event, in said decision, power exercisable by Commissioner under Section 127 of Act, vis-a-vis, instruction issued by Board under Section 119 of Act. did not arise for consideration and therefore, decision does not render support to facts of present case. 22. In decision in case of Kiran Singh vs. Chaman, Paswan & Ors., reported in AIR 1954 SC 340, has been relied on for proposition that decree passed by Court without jurisdiction is nullity and its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of subject-matter of action, strikes at very authority of Court to pass any decree and such defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. In my view, decision relied on is wholly in applicable to facts of present case, as it arose out 21 of proceedings under Suit Valuation Act and question was with regard to construction of Section 11 of Act. In light of above discussion, first question is answered against assessee. 23. Further, case of petitioner is that income of petitioner has been assessed under three heads namely, income from house property, business income and other sources. It was pointed out that properties are owned by petitioner are situated in Erode and jurisdictional Assessing Officer is Erode Ward No.1(3). This is stated based on particulars of income of petitioner, which appears to be from return of income filed. tax information network of Income Tax Department, has published tabulated statement mentioning Ward/Circle/Range/Commissioner, description, area code, AO type, Range Code and AO number. petitioner's contention is that first respondent is Income Tax Officer of Ward No.1(4) and properties of petitioner are situated within jurisdiction of Assessing Officer, Erode, Ward No.1(3). However, on perusal of information published in Tax information tabulated circle is Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle No.1, Erode and territorial areas have been assigned to 22 Income Tax Officers Ward No.1(1) to (4). Range code for said circle is 65 and A.O. Number is 1. Therefore, it is seen that four wards, which are within territorial area namely, Ward No.1(1) to 1(4) fall within same circle namely, DCIT Circle No.1, Erode. Therefore, it is incorrect on part of petitioner to state that first respondent has no territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, range code which has been allotted to all four wards in DCIT circle No.1 is 65. Hence, this contention raised by petitioner does not merit acceptance. 24. In case of UCO Bank vs. CIT, (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that CBDT under Section 119 of Act has power, inter alia, to tone down rigour of law and ensure fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 119 of Act, which are binding on authorities in administration of Act. Further, it was pointed out that under Section 119(2)(a), circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to assessee. power is given for purpose of just, proper and efficient management of work of assessment and in public interest. It is beneficial power given to Board for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship 23 may not be caused to assessee and fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Further, it was pointed out that such circulars are not meant for contradicting or nullifying any provision of statute and they are meant for ensuring proper administration of statute. 25. Having seen effect of circular or direction or order issued under Section 119 of Act, it necessarily follows that such circular cannot mitigate against power under Section 127 of Act. In counter affidavit, it has been stated that transfer is done as provided under Section 127 of Act with sole intention of maintaining equitable distribution of workload among available Assessing Officer and at same time causing minimal hardship to petitioner. It is pointed out that for financial year 2012-13, workload among various Assessing Officer were undue and as per CAP-II reports for month of February, 2013, workload for second respondent was 168 time baring cases of which, 112 were disposed of and balance upto February 2013 was 56, whereas for first respondent, total time baring cases pending on beginning of year was 28, of which 11 were disposed of and 17 were pending. Further, it is submitted that Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II is vacant and only one Officer is 24 holding both authorities of Assistant Commissioner of Circle I and Circle II, Erode. Therefore on basis of request received from range head namely, Joint Commissioner Income Tax Circle-II, three cases including petitioner's case, were transferred for effective and timely completion of scrutiny assessment proceedings, to make equitable distribution of workload. Further, it is submitted that first respondent has completed earlier assessment proceedings of petitioner for assessment year 2009-10, in which certain directions has been given by Commissioner of Income Tax Officer (Appeals)-I regarding recomputing derivative laws. Therefore, it is clear that there is no inconvenience caused to assessee. 26. Further, it is to be seen as to whether instruction issued with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction issued by Board from time to time is as sacrosanct and cannot be amended. 27. It is seen that after issuance of instruction dated 31.01.2011, subsequent instruction was given on 08.04.2011. said instruction modifies earlier instruction dated 31.01.2011 and vests discretion to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Director General of Income Tax to adjust monetary limits by 25 amount upto Rs.5,00,000/-, and purpose for giving such discretion is to ensure that workload is equitably distributed amongs Assessing Officer. Therefore, monetary limit fixed in instruction dated 31.01.2011, was not rigid limit. This is manifest from subsequent instruction dated 08.04.2011, which has given discretion to Chief Commissioner and Director General to adjust limits. underlining object of instructions is equitable distribution of work. It is seen that amended instruction dated 08.04.2011 itself, came to be issued, as Chief Commissioners have expressed view that limits fixed in instruction dated 31.01.2011, if strictly enforced would lead to unequal distribution of workload between Assistant Commissioner and Income Tax Officers. Therefore, Board re-considered matter. impugned order of transfer of file of petitioner to first respondent states that impugned proceedings has been passed for administrative convenience and apart from petitioner's case, two other cases have also been transferred. purpose for such transfer has been elucidated in counter affidavit. Furthermore, there is no malafide alleged as against first respondent, though faint plea was raised at time of arguments, but nevertheless not pursued, since there was no such averments in affidavit nor concerned officer was 26 impleaded in his personal capacity. In result, these Writ Petitions fail and same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 27.11.2014 pbn Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To 1.The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I (4), Erode, 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -I, Erode, 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Coimbatore. 27 T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. pbn Pre-delivery O r d e r in W.P. Nos.5792 & 5793 of 2013 27.11.2014 C.Krishnan v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-I (4), Erode / Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -I, Erode / .The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Coimbatore
Report Error