9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use considerable inconvenience to an assessee. Therefore, even though an assessee may not have a vested right to insist that his assessment be completed only at one place or by a particular AO, nevertheless, the reasons for transfer must be weighty enough to offset against such personal inconvenience of an assessee. It is well settled that judicial review against the administrative orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the court is concerned with the decision making process and not the final decision itself. Unless the reasons which prompted the competent authority to transfer the case can be stated to be wholly irrelevant or arbitrary, the Court would not interfere with such reasons. There are no infirmity in the order impugned passed by the ld. Single judge so as to call for interference by this Court in the instant intra-court appeal - appeal dismissed. - D.B Special Appeal (Writ) No. 249 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2015 - Ajay Rastogi And J.K Ranka, JJ. Anant Kasliwal, for Appellants; Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, for Respondents. Judgment J.K Ranka, Instant intra-court appeal has been preferred against order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 04/03/2015. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/2014, inter-alia, mentioning that the assessee-appellant was part of the Purti Group of Industries, entire Purti Group was assessed to Income Tax at Kolkata and even two directors of the appellant were assessed at Kolkata and prima-facie, it was noticed that there were transactions in between the appellant and Purti Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd and therefore, the cases are required to be centralized at Kolkata for coordinated investigation. The transfer was objected by the appellant vide letter dt. 11/05/2013 and 05/06/2014 mentioning that there was no link in between the assessee with that of Purti Group of Companies and the transaction, if any of sale and purchase, is in ordinary course of business and that too stands recorded in the books of accounts and there was no live link with the assessee with Purti Group of Companies and merely because both the directors are assessed at Kolkata, for that reason, it could not be transferred. However, The Commissioner considering the replies of the assessee and relying upon certain authorities, rejected the claim of the assessee. 5. The claim was reiterated before the ld. Single Judge and it was asserted that merely on the basis of conjectures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs have choice to be assessed at Kolkata and merely because two of the directors are being assessed at Kolkata, does not mean that there is live link and the case could be transferred. He further contended that the order of the ld. Single Judge needs interference. In addition to the cases relied upon by the assessee before the ld. Single Judge, he also relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of R.K Agrawal v. CIT : (2006) 283 ITR 532 (All); Global Energy (P) Ltd. v. CIT : (2013) 89 DTR (Bom-Goa); Sachin Joshi v. CIT : (2015) 370 ITR 598 (Bom) and Noorul Islam Educational Trust v. CIT, W.P (MD) No. 60 of 2009, decided by Madras High Court vide judgment dt. 11/12/2009. 7. Per-contra, ld. counsel for the respondent-Revenue strenuously supported the order of the ld. Single Judge and contended that concentrated efforts of coordinated investigation in cases like this are required to be done by the officers of the Income Tax Department. She further contended that not only at Kolkata but at Alwar also, at the time of search/survey, incriminating material was found linking the assessee with Purti Group of Companies. She further contended that prima-facie view is required to be loo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the statements were being recorded, that the assessee purchased Palm Oil from M/s Purti Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata and sold Kacchi Dhani Mustard Oil to M/s Purti Vanaspatri Pvt. Ltd and that Mr. Kishore Agrawal, who is managing the affairs of M/s Purti Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd., is his elder brother. 9. It would be appropriate to quote the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dt. 17/09/2008 and 25/04/2014 for the purposes of centralization of cases, which reads as under:- i. Non-search cases connected with the search cases where findings of the search have material bearing and needs of coordinated investigation/interest of revenue require such cases to be assessed in the Central Charge. ii. Survey cases or enquiry cases (whether such enquiries were conducted by any wing of the department or an outside agency) wherein some organized/systematic manipulation of accounts/fraud/substantial revenue is involved and/or coordination with outside agencies or a large number of officers within the department is required. iii. Cases arising out of scam as a result of investigation/enquiry conducted by some other Law Enforcement Agency where needs of coordinated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -appellant (assessee) viz-a-viz Purti Group of Companies/Directors. 13. The ld. Single Judge has already observed that the Panchanama drawn on 18/09/2012 shows the name of the appellant as one of the companies in the Purti Group of Companies and during the search operation, papers of connected transactions, inter linked business activities of the assessee-company were also found and seized from the Kolkata office. Ld. Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that in order to examine the entries recorded in documents/share transactions, books of accounts and hard disc and to carry out further proper investigation in a coordinated manner, all the cases of group and the connected cases are required to be centralized at one place with the same assessing officer and we also concur with the finding reached by the ld. Single Judge and we are not persuaded to come to a different conclusion as has been reached by the ld. Single Judge. 14. With regard to the contention of the ld. counsel of the assessee that even after lapse of more than two and a half years, nothing concrete has been provided by the department to justify the action u/s 127; we feel that department at this stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d material and hence such cases deserves to be centralized with same AO's of the charge and upheld the claim of the Revenue. 18. The Delhi High Court, in the case of Ats Infrastructure Ltd . v. Cit : (2009) 318 ITR 299 (Delhi), after applying the decisions laid down by different courts, held that the decision to transfer the cases out of Delhi, would become unassailable, keeping in view the outcome of the searches made in Delhi and in several other parts of UP under the Commissioner, Kanpur and further found that no material came to the possession to transfer the cases out of Delhi was mala fide and accordingly upheld the contention of the Revenue. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of UP v. Johri mal : (2004) 4 SCC 714 : AIR 2004 (SC) 3800 has observed as under:- It is well-settled that while exercising the power of judicial review the Court is more concerned with the decision making process than the merit of the decision itself. In doing so, it is often argued by the defender of an impugned decision that the Court is not competent to exercise its power when there are serious disputed questions of facts; when the decision of the Tribunal or the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sonal inconvenience on the other. However, as long as such powers are exercised bona fide, for public purpose and in the interest of Revenue, the role of the Court in reaching to a different conclusion would be extremely limited. It is well settled that judicial review against the administrative orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the court is concerned with the decision making process and not the final decision itself. Unless the reasons which prompted the competent authority to transfer the case can be stated to be wholly irrelevant or arbitrary, the Court would not interfere with such reasons. 21. We are in full agreement with the order passed by the ld. Single Judge, which needs no interference and in the light of what we have observed herein above, the judgments relied upon by counsel for the assessee, in our view, are distinguishable on facts and are inapplicable to the facts of the instant case. 22. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned passed by the ld. Single judge so as to call for interference by this Court in the instant intra-court appeal. Consequently, the instant intra-court appeal, being devoid of any m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
