9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The aforesaid reasons have been recorded by the two authorities by simply stating that the objections/reply of the petitioner are not satisfactory. There is no whisper with regard to contention/objection of the petitioner that all the companies of the group are having Head Office in Delhi and that most of them at least 40, are filing the returns in Delhi. There is no mention of any reason as to why case of the petitioner or any other case of the aforesaid group of companies requires to be transferred outside New Delhi to NOIDA. The aforesaid two reasons are not relevant for the transfer of the petitioner's case from one Assessing Officer(s) to one or more Assessing Officer(s) either subordinate to the same competent authority or outside his jurisdiction. - Transfer order cancelled. - Writ Tax No. 51 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2017 - Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal And Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ. For the Petitioner : Nikhil Agrawal For the Respondent : C.S.C., Manu Ghildyal ORDER Heard Sri Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for all the respondents. The pleadings exchanged between the parties have als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling returns in Delhi. It appears from the record that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi invited comments on the above objections from the Deputy Director of Income Tax, NOIDA through Principal Commissioner of Tax (Central Kanpur) whereupon it was reported that the objections are not found to be satisfactory, the petitioner is one of the Directors of the aforesaid group of companies and that certain incriminating documents were found during search so the case of the petitioner cannot be separated from others. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi, relying upon the aforesaid report, by the impugned order directed for the transfer of the case of the petitioner to the A.C.I.T. /D.C.I.T., Central NOIDA but without giving personal hearing to him. Section 127(1) and (2) of the Act, for the sake of convenience are quoted below: Power to transfer cases 127. (1) The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subordinate to the same Transferring Authority, namely, the Principal Commissioner. It provides that the Principal Commissioner would give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee wherever it is possible to do so and may transfer the case after recording reasons for doing so. Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Act contemplates the transfer of case from one Assessing Officer(s) to one or more Assessing Officer(s) but not subordinate to the same Authority competent to transfer. It provides that where the two superior authorities, to whom, the Assessing Officers are subordinate, are in agreement, then the competent authority from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred, may give the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter wherever possible and order the transfer of the case after recording reasons for doing so. Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Act contemplates another situation as contained in Clause (b) of it where two superior Authorities, to whom, the Assessing Officers are subordinate, are not in agreement for transfer of the cases, the order of the transfer may be passed by the Board or any such specified Officer as the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the petitioner is transferred to A.C.I.T./B.C.I.T.-C.C., NOIDA. The reasons given by the aforesaid two authorities are the following two only. (1) petitioner is one of the directors and has admitted undisclosed income of ₹ 3.39 crore during the course of search; (2) certain increment documents relating to the case during the search were found and as such the case of the petitioner cannot be separated from others. The aforesaid reasons are only to the effect that the case of the petitioner cannot be separated from the other cases of the aforesaid group of companies and that the petitioner is one of the directors, who had admitted undisclosed income. The holding of the office of a director by the petitioner and his admission to the undisclosed income, if any, is not at all relevant for transfer of the case. The petitioner had not demanded separation of his case from other cases rather wanted all of them to be proceeded in Delhi, but no reason was assigned for shifting it from Delhi to Noida. The reply of the petitioner was not dealt with either by the two authorities in their report, which forms the basis for transfer of the case or by the Principal Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is ex-facie clear that there was not hurdle in giving personal hearing to the petitioner but even then the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing at any stage except for the show cause notice before passing the impugned order and his reply to the show cause notice was not independently considered by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax of his own so as to say that it is not found to be satisfactory frustrating the very purpose of the notice itself. Sri Manu Ghildyal submits that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings of assessment before the Deputy Commissioner of Central Circle, NOIDA and that assessment order has already been passed on 31st December, 2016. In order to counter the above submission Sri Agrawal draws our attention to the protest lodged by the petitioner before participating in the proceedings of assessment. The petitioner vide letter dated 26th December, 2016 much before the passing of the assessment order has raised an objection that he is participating in the proceedings under protest only to extend co-operation without prejudice to the fact that the assessing authority to whom the case has been transferred has no jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
