9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, in the absence of stay of the proceedings under Section 153-A, ibid., the stay that has been granted in respect of transfer of proceedings will not save running of the period of limitation of the proceedings under Section 153-A of the IT Act. This Court finds sufficient substance and force in the submission of Mr. Senthil Kumar. The instant intra-Court appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. - W.A. (MD) No.417 of 2020 and C.M.P. (MD) Nos.2831 and 3158 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2020 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. PUGALENDHI For appellant Mr.V. Lakshmi Narayanan for M/s. Kingsly Solomon For R1 Ms. S. Srimathy Central Govt. Standing Counsel For RR 2 3 Mr. T.R. Senthil Kumar Senior Standing Counsel for I.T. Dept. assisted by for Mrs. K.G. Usha Rani Standing Counsel for I.T. Dept. JUDGMENT (delivered by P.N. PRAKASH, J.) The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (MD) No.16869 of 2019, refusing to quash the transfer of case order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai 2. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, from 25.10.2018, the Income Tax sleuths conducted simultaneous searches under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for conciseness the IT Act ) in the business premises of the juristic persons and in the residential premises of the non-juristic and natural persons. 3.7 According to the Income Tax Department, the searches were conducted between 25.10.2018 and 24.12.2018 and incriminating materials tending to show huge tax evasions were recovered. 3.8 In South Tamil Nadu, the Madurai District has two Central Circles of the Income Tax Department, under which, Tirunelveli District also falls. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, issued individual notices dated 28.01.2019 under Section 127 of the IT Act to all the 20 assessees calling for objections, if any, for the proposal to transfer their assessments files, from Tirunelveli to Madurai. 3.9 At this juncture, it will be appropriate to extract verbatim the relevant portion of the notice dated 28.01.2019 that was issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, to V.V. Minerals No.2: It is proposed to transfer your case from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Tirunelve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s intra-Court appeal, we rummaged through the papers in order to ascertain as to which of the three V.V. Minerals had filed the writ petition, because, there is no reference to the PAN in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. When we posed this pointed question to Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan, he submitted that V.V. Minerals No.2 (PAN AAHFV2400N) had filed the writ petition and accepting his word, we proceed further to continue referring to the appellant/writ petitioner as V.V.Minerals No.2, for the sake of convenience. When we asked Mr.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, as to whether the other 19 assessees had filed any writ petition challenging the transfer of their cases, he answered in the negative. Therefore, we proceeded on the premise that out of the 20 persons referred to in the transfer order dated 19.02.2019 impugned in the writ petition, only V.V. Minerals No.2 is before us. 6. When this intra-Court appeal came up for admission, a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.03.2020, granted interim stay of the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, till 30.03.2020. 7. The Income Tax Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the IT Act and submitted that the whole lot of officers have the power to effect transfer, which includes the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Chennai and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai and when both of them have concurrent powers, the exercise of power by the latter at the request of the former, is bad in law. In this context, it is profitable to extract Section 127(1) of the IT Act as under: 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 his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. 11 Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan drew the attention of this Court to the Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Shri Mul Chand Malu vs. Union of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Delhi. In Chotanagpur Industrial Gases (P) Ltd. (supra), the case was transferred from Calcutta to Patna. In Vijayasanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the case was transferred from Vishakapatnam to Bombay. Thus, the judgments relied upon by Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan are distinguishable on facts. 16. We are aware that Section 127 of the IT Act does not create any geographical classification. Nevertheless, the judgments of Courts should not be read as Euclid's theorem, but, should be understood in the context in which they were rendered, and a blind and pedantic following of precedents is not expected of Constitutional Courts. 17. Coming to the assigning of reasons in the show cause notice, in Shri Mul Chand Malu (supra), the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court has held as under: 18. . . . To facilitate a fair opportunity, the show cause notice must disclose the reason or the gist thereof as to why the transfer of jurisdiction to an officer at New Delhi is necessitated. 19. Moreover, the ground of transfer must have nexus towards administrative convenience and coordinated investigation , as is relfected in the impugned transfer order. But, unfortunately, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 153-A of the IT Act. This Court finds sufficient substance and force in the submission of Mr. Senthil Kumar. 22. Coming to the contention of Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan that the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, have concurrent powers under Section 127(1) of the IT Act for transfer of cases and therefore, the decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, to transfer the cases, based on the proposal given by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) shows non application of mind on the part of the latter and failure on his part to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 127(1) ibid., a perusal of Section 127(1), ibid., extracted supra does not show that the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) has the power under the said provision. Had he had the power, he himself would have taken steps for transfer of the cases. Assuming for a moment that he has the power, the sending of proposal by him to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Madurai, suggesting transfer of cases, will not lead to the inference that he had abdicated his power and that the Principal Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of admission of this intra-Court appeal on 16.03.2020, this Court granted interim stay till 30.03.2020 and posted the matter for orders. In the meanwhile, the Income Tax Department filed C.M.P. (MD) No.3158 of 2020 for vacating the order of interim stay granted on 16.03.2020 and when the matter was listed on 01.06.2020, the Income Tax Department was ready for arguments, but, the learned counsel for V.V. Minerals No.2 sought adjournment. This has been recorded by the Court in the order dated 01.06.2020 and the matter was adjourned to 15.06.2020 specifically for taking up of the main case (See paragraph no.7 above, wherein, the relevant portion of the order dated 16.03.2020 has been extracted). Therefore, V.V. Minerals No.2, who are enjoying an order of stay passed by this Court, know full well that the matter will be taken up finally on 15.06.2020. For some reason or the other, the matter was not listed on 15.06.2020 and was listed on 19.06.2020 and we heard both sides elaborately. Therefore, we found no justification in acceding to the request of the learned counsel for V.V. Minerals No.2 to adjourn the main case to another date. Hence, we reserved orders in the main case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
