9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks from today and the respondent would be at liberty to pass a fresh order thereof, after giving them one more opportunity of hearing - CWP-4264-2019 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 9-9-2019 - MR AJAY TEWARI AND MR HARNARESH SINGH GILL, JJ. For The Petitioners-Assessees : Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S.Kanda, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Kunal Sharma, Standing counsel ORDER AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.1.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Patiala under Section 127 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 transferring assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inated investigations; these required to be centralized with Assessing Officer. The petitioners filed reply in which it was averred that there is no direct or indirect connection with M/s Jai Bharat Group and in fact, it was only in the year 2013-14 that some Directors of M/s. Jai Bharat Group were inducted on the Board of the petitioners' company and the Directors of the petitioners' company have no stake in M/s. Jai Bharat Group and in fact, during the survey conducted on their premises nothing incriminating was found. Hearing was took place on 16.10.2018 before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. Thereafter, the respondent could have passed the order but instead, he addressed a letter to the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same. She has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the matter of Ajantha Industries others Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi others reported as AIR 1976 SC 437, the judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported as (2013) 356 ITR 502 Bom. and the judgment of this Court in the matter of Rajesh Mahajan and others vs. CIT reported as 2002 ITR 25 577. Counsel for the respondent-Revenue has argued that the petitioners were heard before the orders transferring their assessment was passed and that transfer from Sangrur to Karnal can hardly be deemed to be prejudice. He has relied upon the judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
