Calcutta High Court
Shri Nanu Shakti Mandir Seva Trust vs Asst. Director Of Income Tax ... on 10 July, 2014
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
ORDER SHEET
G.A. No. 1849 of 2014
W. P. No. 1281 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SHRI NANU SHAKTI MANDIR SEVA TRUST
Versus
ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)- I KOL
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON
Date : 10th July, 2014.
Appearance :
Mr. A. Sen, Adv.
... for the pettioner
The Court : Despite service there is no appearance
on behalf of the respondents. Challenging an order passed under
Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption)-I Kolkata transferring the jurisdiction to the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(I) Bhubneswar, the instant writ petition is filed.
By an order dated 9th January, 2014, this Court restrained the respondent authority from taking any steps or further steps on the basis of the impugned order. This application 2 is taken out alleging that despite the existence of an order of injunction the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubneswar issued a notice under Section 153A of the said Act requiring the petitioner to file the return preceding six years. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid action of the authority assuming jurisdiction on the strength of the order of transfer is in violation of the order of injunction and such notice cannot be allowed a stand for a moment's scrutiny. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubneswar can only assume jurisdiction on the strength of the order of transfer and not otherwise. When the Court restrained the party from taking any steps on the basis of the order of transfer, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(I), Bhubneswar is apparently bad. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle I(I)is restrained from taking any steps or further steps on the basis of notice dated 6th May, 2014 until the disposal of the instant application.
This Court feels that an opportunity to file opposition to this application should be given to the respondents who are not represented today. The respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition to this application within four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. Let the matter be listed after five weeks in the Supplementary List.
3
The petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent as well as the learned advocate representing them and shall file affidavit-of-service on the next date.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) SBI