9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter is remitted back to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-560 006 to redo the matter after affording opportunity to petitioner. If further objections, if any, is filed to proposed transfer same shall also be considered. Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition Nos. 16038/2015, 17799-803/2015 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 28-4-2015 - Aravind Kumar, J. For the Petitioner : Sri Narasimha Prasad B S, Adv. For the Respondent : Sri K V Aravind, Adv. ORDER Petitioner is seeking for quashing of notices dated 26.03.2015, Annexures - E to K issued under Section 153A and order/notification dated 06.03.2015, Annexure-M, issued under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' for short), whereunder assessment proceedings of petitioner has been transferred from jurisdictional Assessing Officer namely Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 6(2)(1), Bengaluru, to the Assessing Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Deputy Commissioner - Income Tax, Central Circle - 8(2), Mumbai. 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.Narasimha Prasad.B.S, learned counsel appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on valid, specific or cogent reasons, which can be said as germane for having nexus to the facts of case; Reasons assigned does not fulfill the parameters fixed under Section 127 of the Act for the Commissioner to transfer the case of petitioner from Bengaluru to Mumbai. 6. Per contra, Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned panel counsel appearing on behalf of respondents would support the impugned order and contends that on account of search conducted in the business premises of Associate Group, Mumbai, it resulted in consequential search conducted on petitioner's premises and certain share holders of Associate Group of Mumbai / Directors being associated with the company ADL, Malur, of which petitioner is the Managing Director, necessitated Commissioner to exercise the power under Section 127 of the Act to transfer the assessment proceedings of petitioner from the jurisdictional Assessment Officer, Bengaluru to Assessing Officer at Mumbai, who is framing the assessment proceedings of Associate Group, Mumbai. Hence, he supports the impugned order as well as notices. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on careful perusal of case papers and bestowing m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain reasons and recording of reasons is mandatory as otherwise the noticee would not be in position to assail the said order before this Court under the extraordinary jurisdiction. In fact, Coordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the import of Section 127 of the Act and it has been held that assigning of reason is a must. 10. In the case of Y.MOIDEEN KUNHI CO. vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER reported in (1993) 71 TAXMAN 177 (KAR.) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the various contentions raised at the bar has held to the following effect: 17. Whenever a group of files are transferred from the jurisdictional Assessing Officers at the place where the assessees are carrying on business or reside, to a place outside the city, locality or place, the assessees will invariably be put to undue hardship and inconvenience. Therefore, there must be justifiable and valid reasons for such transfer. Whenever several files pending with various assessing authorities are transferred to a single authority, it is necessarily to facilitate co-ordinated investigation. Hence, that cannot be the reason for the transfer. To say that the transfer of several files is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madhya Pradesh referred to in para 16 above are to be take as laying down a proposition that even in case of transfers to other cities, it is sufficient to state to facilitate co-ordinated investigation' or similar formal words as reason for the transfer in compliance with the statutory requirement in section 127(1) relating to giving and communicating reasons, then I respectfully dissent from such a view. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AJANTHA INDUSTRIES vs. CBDT reported in (1976) 102 ITR 281 has held that while making an order of transfer under Section 127 of the Act requirements of recording reasons is mandatory and non communication of same to the assessee would not save such order by showing that reasons existed in file although not communicated to assessee. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment to the following effect: The reasons for recording of reasons in the order and making these reasons known to the assessee is to enable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution or even this court under article 136 of the Constitution in an appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
