No legal requirement to intimate assessee before transferring its case to another AO within same city: ITAT

Case details: Jaswantlal J. Shah v. ACIT - [2021] 128 taxmann.com 378 (Mumbai - Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member.
  • Ms. Usha Gaikwad for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The instant appeal was filed by the assessee challenging jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order. Assessee contended that order passed under section 127 transferring assessee’s case must be communicated under the signature of the competent authority to clearly indicate that there had been an agreement between the CIT having jurisdiction over the case and the CIT having jurisdiction over the transferee AO. Further such agreement must be communicated to the assessee.

Revenue referred the provisions of sub-section (3) to section 127 to contend that when jurisdiction of Assessing Officer is transferred within the same city, opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the assessee.

ITAT Held

The Mumbai Tribunal held that short contention of the assessee was that before changing the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under section 127, the same was not communicated to the assessee.

The provisions of section 127(1) & (2) mandate that the competent authority after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after recording the reasons for doing so shall pass the order transferring jurisdiction of any case from one Assessing Officer subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer also subordinate to him. However, sub-section (3) to section 127 provides an exception to the above statutory provision i.e. where the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer is transferred from one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer within the same city, locality, or place, there is no mandatory requirement to provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the instant case, undisputedly the assessee’s case was transferred from DCIT-15(2), Mumbai to ACIT, Central Circle-32, Mumbai, i.e., the change in the jurisdiction of AO was within the same city. Hence, there was no statutory requirement for notice or prior intimation for change in jurisdiction to the assessee.

Case Review

Advantage Strategic Consulting (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 104/[2018] 253 Taxman 11/400 ITR 405 (Mad.) (para 5.1) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Jaswantlal J. Shah v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 2599 (Mum.) of 2014, dated 8-5-2017] (para 4)
  • Shree Ram Vessel Scrap (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 32 taxmann.com 120/215 Taxman 203 (Guj.) (para 4)
  • Advantage Strategic Consulting (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 104/[2018] 253 Taxman 11/400 ITR 405 (Mad.) (para 4)
  • Pr. CIT v. Paramshakhti Distributors (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 413 of 2017, dated 15-7-2010] (para 6.1).