Provisions of Sec. 127 not Applicable on Transfer of an Assessee’s Jurisdiction from One Place to Another | HC

Case Details: Alliance Broadcasting (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT - [2023] 152 taxmann.com 292 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Mohammed Shaffiq, J

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was a Company and part of a Group of Companies. The petitioner was engaged in the business of running a TV channel. There was a search in the company and other group concerns under section 132. Incriminating materials relating to the petitioner company were seized during the search and seizure conducted in the group concerns.

Later, the assessee contended that it shifted its registered place of business from Bangalore to Tamil Nadu. Considering that no notice under section 127 was received, the assessee filed a writ petition contending that revenue didn’t comply with the provision of section 127 and that all the proceedings under the search were void-ab-initio.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the writ petitions had been filed on the premise that the notice under section 127 had not been issued to the petitioner. However, the above submission has not been made in the written submissions.

Whether Section 127 would apply or not itself is debatable in view of the fact that the petitioner’s registered place of business was shifted from Bangalore to Tamil Nadu and was intimated by the petitioner to the Department vide a letter.

It should be noted that section 127 of the Income-tax Act would apply only to cases where a case is transferred from one jurisdiction to another and not a transfer of jurisdiction of the assessee from one place to the other, as in the present case. Therefore, the writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018] 89 taxmann.com 429 (SC) (para 9) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • CIT v. Chhabil Das Agarwal [2013] 36 taxmann.com 36/217 Taxman 143 (SC) (para 6)
  • Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 17 taxmann.com 202/204 Taxman 408 (SC) (para 8)
  • Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018] 89 taxmann.com 429 (SC) (para 9).