2023 (2) TMI 425 - HC - Income Tax

Correctness/validity of an order under Section 127 - power of transfer of case - case transferred from Kolkata to New Delhi - Validity of order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata- 9 (PCIT) - HELD THAT - Having noted the legal position that exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act is an administrative exercise with the ultimate object of assessments and collection of taxes, an assessee cannot be heard to say that it would adversely affect its interest. If reasons exist for transfer, the scope of interference of the Writ Court against such an administrative exercise is narrow and limited and the courts will exercise utmost restrain in stepping into the realm of administrative matters which are best to be left to the decision of the authorities. The learned single bench had elaborately taken note of the factual position and upheld the order of transfer. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that all the findings rendered by the learned single bench makes deep in-road into the merits of the matter and thereby grossly prejudicing the interest of the assessee. While examining the correctness of the administrative action, we cannot be called upon to do and hair-splitting exercise or else we would be converted to doing the role of an assessing officer which is not permissible in a writ proceeding. Several other factual details have been elaborately set out by the learned single bench. These factual details which were set out by the learned single bench are to justify the order of dismissal of the writ petition can at best be construed to be reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer and nothing more, the findings rendered by the learned writ court are only prima facie findings and they can never cause any dent upon the ultimate decision which the assessing officer in the transferred place would take after taking note of the relevant facts and documents placed before it. The natural corollary which has to follow is that the income tax department was required to assign reasons for proposing the transfer. These reasons were set out in the show-cause notice dated 11.01.2022. The assessee is thus precluded from stating that the show-cause notice is coloured on facts. This being a result of the order obtained by the assessee in the earlier writ petition, the assessee is barred from raising such a contention. Argument was made that the income tax department is expanding the scope by submitting additional information, bringing on record new facts. This again is on account of the facts that the assessee in the writ petition has sought to justify his stand on the reasons recorded, this has necessitated that income tax department to bring facts on record, thus the assessee having invited such a response cannot be heard to raise any complaint in this regard. All that is required by the Writ Court is to consider as to whether there are grounds for transfer as emanating from the reasons recorded. We are satisfied there are adequate reasons. We refrain from commenting upon the reasons as it would impinge upon the rights of the assessee during the assessment proceedings at Delhi as a part of the centralization done by the income tax department in the cases of thirty four other assessees. The plea of mala fide exercise of power has not been pleaded (as required), and from the facts placed by the learned Additional Solicitor General it is clear that such a plea of assessee is specious. Once again it is reiterated that when the assessee himself complained that no reasons were recorded in the show-cause notice dated 05.09.2019 and the order of transfer (quashed in the earlier writ proceedings), the income tax department was duty bound to follow the directions in 2021 (10) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Therefore, to state the show-cause notice, and order of transfer were coloured on facts is unacceptable. Assessee, before the learned Writ Court has embarked on facts, as was done before us, this has resulted in the learned Writ Court to consider the same and render a finding. In any event in this litigation adjudication of the merits is out of bounds, hence any argument as advanced on behalf of the appellant in that regard has to necessarily fail. If the assessee states that he claims no right to be assessed at a particular place while exercising the power under Section 127 of the Act, our task becomes easier. Assessee had been provided with adequate opportunity to put further his submissions on the proposal for transfer, opportunity of personal hearing was granted and availed of, reasons have been recorded by the department. There is no challenge to the decision making process. The plea of mala fide has not been pleaded or proved. The plea of inconvenience has been found to be not tenable. In the net result, we have to necessarily uphold the order of transfer. The appellant has not been able to make out any case for interference with the order of transfer on anyone of the settled principles for interference of an administrative order. The learned single bench had made an elaborate exercise and upheld the order of transfer and we find no good grounds to interfere with the same.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Adequacy of reasons provided for the transfer.
4. Jurisdictional authority and administrative convenience.
5. Allegations of mala fide intent and arbitrariness.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Transfer Order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant challenged the transfer order dated February 23, 2022, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Kolkata-9, under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the transfer was unjustified as it was not based on any search or survey conducted on him. The court, however, upheld the transfer order, stating that the power of transfer under Section 127 is an administrative exercise aimed at the assessment and collection of taxes. The court emphasized that the statute does not confer a fundamental right on the assessee to be assessed in a particular area or locality, and such transfers are within the jurisdiction of the tax authorities.

2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as the initial objections and representations were not considered, and no opportunity for a hearing was provided before the transfer order was passed. The court noted that the earlier transfer order was quashed due to these procedural lapses, and the department was directed to initiate fresh proceedings. In compliance with this direction, a fresh show-cause notice was issued on January 11, 2022, providing detailed reasons for the proposed transfer and offering an opportunity for a hearing, which the appellant availed. The court found that the principles of natural justice were duly followed in the subsequent proceedings.

3. Adequacy of Reasons Provided for the Transfer:
The appellant contended that the reasons provided in the show-cause notice and the transfer order were not adequate and were based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. The court referred to the legal principle established in Ajantha Industries and Others vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, which mandates that reasons for transfer must be recorded and communicated to the assessee. The court found that the reasons provided, including the need for coordinated investigation and assessment of unaccounted money transactions linked to the appellant, were adequate and justified the transfer. The court emphasized that the sufficiency of reasons is not subject to judicial review in writ jurisdiction.

4. Jurisdictional Authority and Administrative Convenience:
The appellant argued that the transfer was based on administrative convenience and the "suitable boy" theory, which is not a valid ground for transfer under Section 127. The court rejected this argument, stating that the transfer was necessitated by the need for coordinated investigation and assessment of inter-linked transactions involving multiple parties. The court highlighted that administrative convenience and the need for effective tax collection are valid considerations for such transfers. The court also noted that the appellant's claim of inconvenience due to the transfer was not tenable as his income and bank accounts were primarily in Delhi.

5. Allegations of Mala Fide Intent and Arbitrariness:
The appellant alleged that the transfer order was arbitrary and mala fide. The court found no evidence to support these allegations. The court reiterated that the absence of a fundamental right to be assessed in a particular locality means that the statute can take away such a right for administrative reasons. The court also noted that the appellant did not plead or prove mala fide intent, and the reasons provided for the transfer were based on relevant considerations and proper application of mind by the tax authorities.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the transfer order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the appellant's contentions regarding violation of natural justice, inadequacy of reasons, administrative convenience, and allegations of mala fide intent. The court emphasized that the transfer was justified for coordinated investigation and assessment of unaccounted money transactions and that the principles of natural justice were duly followed in the subsequent proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity and correctness of the administrative order of transfer.