2009 (5) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer of case from Delhi to Meerut - Show cause notice u/s 127 - even if the notice in question erroneously mentions the pendency of a case in Meerut, since the decision to transfer it there is in large measure influenced by the convenience of the Petitioners, it becomes impervious to challenge Meerut is undoubtedly of closest proximity both to Delhi as well as to the Noida and hence the impugned decision is neither capriciousness, malafide nor arbitrary - Petitions lack merit and are dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer of cases from Delhi to Meerut under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Adequacy of reasons provided for the transfer.
3. Consideration of the Petitioners' convenience versus the Revenue's requirements.
4. Allegations of arbitrariness and mala fides in the transfer decision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Transfer of Cases:
The Petitioners challenged the transfer of their cases from Delhi to Meerut as ordered by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that this was the second attempt by the Petitioners to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The initial transfer order dated 7.10.2008 was set aside for lack of reasons, leading to a fresh order dated 1.4.2009 which was challenged again.

2. Adequacy of Reasons Provided for the Transfer:
The Petitioners argued that the reasons provided in the show cause notice dated 30.9.2008 were insufficient and did not justify the transfer of cases to Meerut. The notice mentioned the intimate connection between the ATS Group cases necessitating centralization with the Assessing Officer handling other cases of the group. The Court observed that the Petitioners were aware of the reasons for the transfer, as evidenced by their detailed objections dated 30.3.2009. The Court held that the reasons for the transfer were adequately communicated and no prejudice was caused to the Petitioners.

3. Consideration of the Petitioners' Convenience versus the Revenue's Requirements:
The Petitioners contended that the transfer would create inconvenience and additional administrative costs. They argued that their business operations were primarily in Delhi and Noida, with no establishments in Meerut. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Pannallal Binjraj vs. UOI, which stated that while the convenience of the assessee is a consideration, it is subordinate to the exigencies of tax collection. The Court found that the transfer to Meerut was justified based on the need for effective tax investigation and collection, given the ATS Group's significant business activities in Noida and surrounding areas.

4. Allegations of Arbitrariness and Mala Fides:
The Petitioners alleged that the transfer decision was arbitrary and made in bad faith. The Court examined the facts and found no evidence of mala fides or arbitrariness. The decision to transfer the cases was based on the outcome of searches conducted in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, and the need for centralized assessment. The Court also noted that the Petitioners had no objection to the consolidation of cases or their transfer to Ghaziabad, indicating that their primary concern was the venue rather than the transfer itself. The Court concluded that the transfer to Meerut was neither capricious nor arbitrary, as it was influenced by the convenience of the Petitioners and the availability of the concerned officer in Meerut.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petitions, finding that the transfer of cases to Meerut was legally justified, adequately reasoned, and not arbitrary or made in bad faith. The decision prioritized the effective collection of taxes over the convenience of the Petitioners, in line with established legal principles. The pending applications were also dismissed, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →