9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded, if directing transfer. Though there is no specific requirement for the notice to set out the reasons but the principles of natural justice require reasons to be stated, to enable the assessee to make effective use of the opportunity granted of hearing. The present is however not a case where though no reasons were set out in the notice but the petitioner was unaware of the reasons for proposed transfer. The petitioner, in its reply dated 26th October, 2020 to the notice referred to an earlier reply (but which has not been produced) and contended that the petitioner firm had been searched under Section 132A by the Investigation Wing, Faridabad on 19th February, 2020 and the department was in the process of jurisdictional change from New Delhi to Faridabad for centralization of the cases belonging to it; that Devender Kumar Gupta who on behalf of the petitioner was replying to the notice, was also a Director in five other private limited companies all of which also had their registered office at Delhi, at the same address in Delhi which was the address of the petitioner and all the said companies were also being assessed at Delhi; that since the material collected durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi. If the partners for their own assessment have to participate in the proceedings at Faridabad and Chandigarh, we see no prejudice from the firm of the said partners also being assessed at Faridabad. We are also of the view that the petitioner was required to disclose that its partners were residing at Faridabad and the same was a relevant fact. We do not agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not required to disclose the residence of its partners. The petition is supported by the affidavit of Devender Kumar Gupta, where he has given his address of Delhi, when it is admitted that he is residing at Faridabad. Once the matter concerns territoriality, the place of residence cannot be said to be not relevant. The petitioner, to that extent has indulged in suppression of material facts and for this reason alone is not entitled to any equitable relief from this Court. Suppression of material facts, in Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. [ 2012 (10) TMI 1097 - SUPREME COURT] has been reiterated to be an abuse of the process of the Court. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. - W.P.(C) 1761/2021 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2021 - HON'BL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order nor the impugned order containing any reasons for transfer. Vide the notice dated 8th October, 2020, issued in exercise of power under Section 127(2) of the Act, the petitioner was informed of the proposal received from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram regarding the centralization of the case of the petitioner from ITO Ward 29(1), New Delhi to ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad and the petitioner asked to submit its objections, if any and to participate in the hearing granted. Undoubtedly, the said notice did not set out any reasons for transfer. However, a perusal of Section 127(2)(a) shows the same to be requiring only giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, that too wherever it is possible to do so and only requires reasons to be recorded, if directing transfer. Though there is no specific requirement for the notice to set out the reasons but the principles of natural justice require reasons to be stated, to enable the assessee to make effective use of the opportunity granted of hearing. The present is however not a case where though no reasons were set out in the notice but the petitioner was unawar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired to be centralized in Central Circle-II Faridabad, wherein maximum number of cases related to this group had already been centralized at one place. Thereafter, the impugned order records that the objections of the petitioner had been duly addressed and there was no justifiable reason for not centralizing the assessment. The impugned order also reasons that Faridabad was within Delhi-NCR Region and in close proximity with Delhi and large number of people working in Delhi are residing in Faridabad or visa-versa. It thus cannot be said that the impugned order is without any reason. The counsel for the petitioner has also not contended, what prejudice has been suffered by the petitioner from the notice not setting out any reasons for transfer. There is thus no merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, of the statutory requirement of giving opportunity and the principles of natural justice having been violated. 9. Even otherwise, an order of transfer is more in the nature of an administrative exercise of power and the scope of interference wherein in any case is limited and unless the administrative power is shown to have been exercised without authority under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e power. 10. All the other judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner, are on the aspect of opportunity of hearing and turn on their own facts but we have hereinabove already held that in the fact of the present case there was sufficient compliance with the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. 11. Rather, the facts of Vishal Kumar supra referred to by the counsel for the respondent are more akin to the facts of the present case. The notice preceding the order of transfer in that case, also from Delhi to Faridabad, was in the same format as the notices in the present case and the objection to the transfer also was on the ground of the petitioner therein being at Delhi and being a nominee Director. However, this Court dismissed the challenge reasoning (a) that the proposal for transfer arose from previous investigation of the revenue and search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act; (b) that there was undoubtedly a link in the business at two places; (c) that the assessment of all those who were associated, by the same Assessing Officer was important; (d) that it was not in the Court's domain to second guess the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
