9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his discretion in a reasonable manner. To ensure that the Commissioner of Income Tax exercises his discretion in a just and reasonable manner he has to record reasons for doing so. If the reasons are arbitrary, the Court will set aside the order of transfer. In the present case, Commissioner of Income Tax has so recorded reasons while exercising his powers and these reasons are that the substantial transactions of petitioner with related parties i.e. entities belongs to Sahara Group of Companies. Therefore, so long as reasons indicated in the order are neither arbitrary and/or unreasonable, Court would not be justified in setting aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 127(2) of the Act. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g assessed to Income Tax at Mumbai. 3 On 12 September 2011, the respondent No.1 i.e. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai issued a notice to the petitioner, seeking its no objections to transfer the petitioner's case i.e. pending proceedings under the Act to New Delhi. 4 Thereafter on 5 January 2012, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order under Section 127(2) of the Act, transferring the Assessment Proceedings i.e. the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, Central Circle 6, New Delhi i.e. respondent No.3 w.e.f. 6 January 2012. The above order dated 5 January 2012 was challenged by filing Writ Petition No.596 of 2012 in this Court. On 12 September 2012, this Court by an order passed in Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consequently, it was the petitioner No.1's submission that the transfer of the petitioners' Assessment Proceedings from Mumbai to New Delhi under Section 127(2) of the Act, was not warranted. 6 On 27 December 2012, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order, transferring the petitioner No.1's case from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi w.e.f. 27 December 2012. Consequently, all pending assessments commencing with the Assessment Year 201011 stood transferred to New Delhi w.e.f. 27 December 2012. 7 During the hearing before us, Counsel for both the sides inform us that consequent to the impugned order dated 27 December 2012, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder ought to be set aside. 9 As against the above, Mr, Arvind Pinto, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order and submit as under: (a) The transfer of proceedings to Delhi is an order with reasons inasmuch as the basis for the transfer is that the petitioner No.1 belongs to the Sahara Group of Companies and it has substantial financial transactions with various entities in the group. Therefore, the need to have assessment centralized; and (b) The impugned order is neither arbitrary or perverse. The impugned order itself indicates substantial financial transactions of the petitioner with the various group entities belonging to Sahara Group as the reason for transfer. In view of the above, it is submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer to another but has left it to the judgment of the Commissioner of Income Tax to exercise his discretion in a reasonable manner. To ensure that the Commissioner of Income Tax exercises his discretion in a just and reasonable manner he has to record reasons for doing so. If the reasons are arbitrary, the Court will set aside the order of transfer. In this case, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax hasso recorded reasons while exercising his powers and these reasons are the substantial transactions of petitioner No.1 with related parties i.e. entities belongs to Sahara Group of Companies. Therefore, so long as reasons indicated in the order are neither arbitrary and/or unreasonable, this Court would not be justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, therefore, submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at New Delhi. The petitioners have not pointed out any protest by them at New Delhi. This is an additional reason why we see no reason to entertain this petition. 13 This petition was filed in Court on 20 February 2013. There is not a whisper in the petition about proceedings having been commenced at New Delhi and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act having been received on 30 January 2013 and the petitioner No.1 is participating in the same. In all fairness the petitioners should have mentioned these facts in the petition. We trust the petitioners would be more careful in the future. 14 In view of the fact that we find that the impugned order dated 27 December 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
