9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 127 (2). No doubt, the petitioner has stated in their reply dated 02.03.2016 that they have no objection for centralization of the above cases with Mumbai. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a thorough perusal of the reply dated 02.03.2016 would undoubtedly indicate that the petitioner has given their no objection for centralization of the Radford case with Mumbai, also by specifically stating that they have no client registered under the name and style RADFORD/RADFORD GROUP. The very notice issued under section 127 (2) to the petitioner dated 23.02.2016 is bereft of material particulars indicating specifically that the petitioner case is sought to be transferred from Chennai to Mumbai to be tagged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai, the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner was issued with a notice dated 23.02.2016 calling upon them to file their reply under section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act for the proposed centralisation of the group case of Radford Group with Mumbai. By their communication dated 02.03.2016, the petitioner, after expressing their stand that they have no client registered under the name and style RADFORD/RADFORD Group, has, however, stated that they have no objection for centralisation of the above case with Mumbai. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent, transferring the case of the petitioner from Chennai to Mumbai as stated supra. 3. Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... give any reason in the impugned order for transferring the case from Chennai to Mumbai. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is an assessee on the file of the 3rd respondent herein namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1),Chennai. It is not in dispute that except the notice dated 23.02.2016, no other communication was issued to the petitioner indicating the proposal of transferring the petitioner's own case from Chennai to Mumbai. Thus, the only communication dated 23.02.2016 given under section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, which is available before the petitioner,reads as follows: To M/s. Aditya Birla Money Ltd 55, Ali Tower, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FORD GROUP. In other words, it seems that the petitioner has given such no objection only for centralization of the Radford Group cases at Mumbai and there is no indication whatsoever in their reply expressing their willingness for transferring their own case from Chennai to Mumbai. Therefore, I am of the view that the very notice issued under section 127 (2) to the petitioner dated 23.02.2016 is bereft of material particulars indicating specifically that the petitioner case is sought to be transferred from Chennai to Mumbai to be tagged along with the Radford Group cases. In the absence of such material particulars, I do not think that the No Objection given by the petitioner, that too, for centralization of the Radford Group cases can hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
