2025 (4) TMI 1275 - SCH - Income Tax

Order u/s 127 (2) transferring the petitioner s case from the jurisdictional officer in Mumbai to the counterpart in New Delhi - as decided by HC 2025 (1) TMI 461 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT convenience of the assessee is adverted to but the impugned order observes that this aspect is secondary and may have to yield to the more significant interest of centralised and coordinated investigation. The order also records that the centralisation is for a limited period and once the assessment concludes as per the norms then there would be de-centralization. The impugned order also refers to certain precedents of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Courts.The charge that the impugned order is unreasoned must fail. At least prima facie the reasons cannot be considered irrelevant or extraneous. T HELD THAT - Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

Summary

The Supreme Court of India, through Hon'ble Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, dismissed the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, holding that "No case for interference is made out." Consequently, the petition is dismissed and the pending application disposed of.