2017 (11) TMI 1024 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer of case u/s 127 - Centralization of cases ACIT, Central Circle Bikaner - adherence to principles of natural justice as giving assessee opportunity to file his objection as well as for personal hearing.- Held that - The group of cases are assessed on different place, namely, at Delhi, Noida, Bikaner, Mumbai etc. and therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force as the cases of the petitioner group are centralised in accordance with law, and even otherwise the instructions are just to facilitate the authorities to carry on the execution of the proceedings in accordance with law and after due consideration of the entire material and facts of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not supported his submission, while pressing the aforesaid circular/ instruction, except tried to place sub-clause (c) of the said instruction, which in our opinion is not relevant in the facts of the present case. In our opinion, in this group of cases, dozens of cases relating to the petitioner s group were proposed to be brought to one place for co-ordinated investigation, did not require any further or better or detailed reasons so as indicated in the impugned order passed under Section 127 of the Act. We find that in the present case the principle of natural justice had been complied with and we further find that the order impugned has been passed by the authority after due consideration of the material and in accordance with law. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act transferring the case to ACIT, Central Circle Bikaner.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order transferring the case to ACIT, Central Circle Bikaner under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner, a part of M/s Bajaj Group in Bikaner, had a search and seizure operation conducted on their premises. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida issued a notice on 8th June, 2017, asking the petitioner to file objections regarding centralization of the case before ACIT, Bikaner, and appear before the office by 28th June, 2017. Instead of appearing, the petitioner requested the transfer of cases to Central Circle New Delhi. The order transferring the case to Bikaner was challenged on the grounds of lack of opportunity for objection and personal hearing, citing relevant legal precedents.

The legal requirement under Section 127(1) mandates giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard before transferring a case. The notice dated 8th June, 2017 provided such an opportunity, but the petitioner only filed an objection to transfer the case to Delhi and requested a personal hearing a day before the deadline. The order cited reasons for transfer to Bikaner for coordinated post-search investigation and meaningful assessment. The court found that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity for objection and hearing, and the reasons for transfer were duly recorded, thus upholding the order.

The respondent relied on a previous court decision emphasizing the necessity of providing reasons for case transfer. In this case, ample reasons were provided for the transfer, and the petitioner was given opportunities for objection and hearing, which were not availed. The petitioner's objection to the transfer based on a circular was deemed irrelevant as the circular did not apply to the present case involving multiple locations of assessment within the petitioner's group. The court concluded that the transfer was conducted in accordance with the law, considering the material facts of the case.

The court found that the principle of natural justice was adhered to, and the impugned order was passed after due consideration of the material and in compliance with the law. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the transfer order was dismissed for lack of merit.

In summary, the court upheld the order transferring the case to ACIT, Central Circle Bikaner under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, citing compliance with legal requirements, sufficient opportunities given to the petitioner, and valid reasons provided for the transfer.