9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Jehangir Mestri, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Niraj Sheth i/by. MINT CONFRERES, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.N. Singh, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT ( PER : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) 1. This Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 2nd January, 2018 passed by respondent no.1 purportedly under Section 127(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) transferring his case from Kolhapur to Mumbai, on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. Thus liable to be quashed by issuing appropriate writ, order and/or directions. 2. Heard Mr. Mistri, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Singh for the respondents. 3. With the consent of the parties, the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a letter dated 27th October, 2017 to the petitioner informing the petitioner that his objections were conveyed by respondent no.1 to Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (CCIT) i.e. CCIT- Pune, who inturn conveyed the objections to CCIT, (Central, Mumbai) who then forwarded the same to the Additional DIT (Investigation), Mumbai. Petitioner was conveyed that DDIT (Investigation) overruled all his objections having found, to be not acceptable and proposed to be rejected. He was also informed that since his case is connected to the D.Y. Patil Group, for coordinated investigation/verification, necessary order under Section 127 of the Act, was proposed to be passed and as such he was called upon to attend the office and submit his objections, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show-cause notice, as well as, the order under Section 127(2) of the Act is that, there has to be an agreement between CCIT (Pune) and the CCIT-Mumbai and without there being an express agreement, the principal conditions for invoking the provisions of Section 127(2) cannot be treated as having been met. (iii) that neither show cause notice nor impugned transfer order, even remotely suggest about the agreement between CCIT, Mumbai and CCIT, Pune and/or Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur. (iv) That show-cause notice dated 14.2.2017 as well as impugned order dated 2.1.2018, clearly indicate transfer proceedings were initiated not at the instance/request of officers, in terms of Section 127(2) of the Act, but, in pursuance to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation. As already mentioned earlier, the process of centralization of the case of petitioner was started after receipt of written communication vide letter dtd. 19.12.2016 from the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central)-1, Mumbai to CCIT, Pune (copy enclosed as per Annexure-2). Thereafter, CCIT, Pune has issued letter dtd. 25.01.2017 to Pr.CIT-1 2, Kolhapur seeking consent for centralization of cases (copy enclosed as per Annexure-3). Thereafter PCIT-1 2, Kolhapur has issued letters to Shri. Dilip Tanaji Kashid seeking consent/objection from the assessee to transfer his case from ITO, Ward 2(2), Kolhapur to ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai. Since the assessee has objected for transfer, the objections were communicated to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is discernable from the reply that; (a) Centralised Committee in its meeting held on 16th November, 2016 decided to centralise the 13 cases including that of the petitioner herein for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation. (b) Centralisation Committee is not the authority, envisaged under Section 127(2) of the Income-Tax Act. (c) vide letter dated 19th December, 2016 the CCIT (Central)-I sought consent of CCIT (Pune) in accordance with the decision of the Centralisation Committee. (d) that CCIT, Pune forwarded letter dated 19th December, 2016 to respondent no.1 alongwith letter dated 25th January, 2017. (e) Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, Kolhapur is subordinate to CCIT, Pune. (f) CCIT (Central), Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
