2017 (9) TMI 1040 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer of cases u/s 127 - reasons for change in jurisdiction - Held that - Even though an assessee may not have a vested right to insist that his assessment be completed only at one place or by a particular Assessing Officer, nevertheless, the reasons for transfer must be weighty enough to offset against such personal inconvenience of an assessee. In exercise of power under section 127 thus we are concerned with larger public interest on one hand and personal inconvenience on the other. However, as long as such powers are exercised bona fide, for public purpose and in the interest of Revenue, the role of the Court to dissect such reasons and to come to a different conclusion would be extremely limited. It is by now well settled that judicial review against the administrative order in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Court is concerned with the decision making process and not the final decision itself. Unless the reasons which prompted the competent authority to transfer the case can be stated to be wholly irrelevant or arbitrary, the Court would not interfere with such reasons. The petitioner is a part of group companies which were subjected to common search action. The assessments of all 42 group companies are being centralised at one place. In view of the judgment of this Court in case of Shree Ram Vessel Scrap P. Ltd.(2013 (10) TMI 982 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) we find no reason to interfere.

Issues Involved:

1. Challenge to the transfer order of assessment.
2. Allegation of breach of principles of natural justice.
3. Hardship and prejudice due to transfer.
4. Requirement of agreement between Principal Commissioners.
5. Adequacy of reasons for transfer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Transfer Order of Assessment:

The petitioner contested an order dated 23.11.2016 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, which transferred the petitioner’s assessment case from DCIT, Circle 2, Ahmedabad to ACIT, Central Circle, Moradabad. The petitioner had previously challenged a similar order dated 30.12.2015 on the grounds of breach of natural justice, which was quashed by the High Court on 18.7.2016. The Court held that the mere issuance of a notice without indicating prima facie grounds for transfer did not fulfill the requirement of hearing under section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act.

2. Allegation of Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:

The petitioner argued that the initial transfer order was passed without providing necessary information, documents, or a date for further hearing, making the procedure a mere formality. The High Court agreed, stating that the notice failed to indicate any reasons for the proposed transfer, leaving the petitioner to speculate and respond without adequate information. The subsequent notice issued on 5.8.2016 and communication on 3.11.2016 provided reasons for the transfer, citing the need for coordinated investigation in search and seizure cases involving related party transactions within the Genus group of companies.

3. Hardship and Prejudice Due to Transfer:

The petitioner contended that transferring the assessment to Moradabad, nearly 800 kms away from Ahmedabad, would cause significant prejudice and inconvenience. The Court acknowledged the potential hardship but emphasized that the transfer was necessary for coordinated investigation and effective administration of the Act. The Court noted that the petitioner’s objections were considered, and the final order was passed after due process, satisfying the requirement of hearing.

4. Requirement of Agreement Between Principal Commissioners:

The petitioner argued that there was no agreement between the Principal Commissioners of Ahmedabad and Moradabad as required under section 127(2) of the Act. The Court examined the records and found that the Principal Commissioner of Lucknow had consented to the centralization of cases with the ACIT, Central Circle, Moradabad. Although there was no formal letter from the Principal Commissioner of Ahmedabad, his agreement was inferred from the issuance of notices and the subsequent order. The Court held that the requirement of agreement was met, as the Principal Commissioner of Ahmedabad had effectively consented to the transfer.

5. Adequacy of Reasons for Transfer:

The Court evaluated the reasons provided for the transfer, which included the need for coordinated investigation due to interlinked business transactions within the Genus group. The Court referenced previous judgments, emphasizing that effective and coordinated investigation is a valid ground for transfer. The Court found the reasons for transfer to be adequate and not arbitrary or perverse, thereby upholding the transfer order.

Conclusion:

The petition was dismissed, with the Court finding no breach of principles of natural justice, adequate reasons for transfer, and compliance with the requirement of agreement between Principal Commissioners. The transfer was deemed necessary for coordinated investigation and effective administration of the Act, outweighing the petitioner’s inconvenience.

← Previous Next →