9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 11.03.2022 of respondent No.2 passed u/S.127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT ACT' for brevity) transferring the assessment proceedings pending against the petitioner u/S. 147 of the IT Act from Central Circle-1, Raipur to Central Circle - 08, New Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission and also final disposal. 3. Learned senior counsel for petitioner in support of his contentions that an order u/S.127(1) of the IT Act does not contain cogent and self-explanatory reasons, relies upon judgments in Ajantha Industries and Others Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others, (1976) 1 SCC 1001; Divesh Prakashchand Jain Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [2022] 134 Taxm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lords Distillery Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2007] 294 ITR 147 (Calcutta). Lastly, it is submitted that affording of reasonable opportunity is a sine qua non for exercise of power of transfer u/S.127 of the IT Act, for which reliance is placed upon judgment in Virbhadra Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2015] 60 taxmann.com 269 (Himachal Pradesh). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue relies upon judgments in M/S MRL POSNET PRIVATE LIMITED (REP. BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER MR. B. SUNDAR) Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER, 314 CTR 756 (MAD); SAMEER LEASING CO. LTD. Vs. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS., 185 ITR 129; DEV WINES SALES CORPORATION Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... centralized with CC-08, Delhi and, therefore, to ensure a coordinated approach in assessment, the PAN of the petitioner should be centralized in Delhi. The impugned order has further taken into account the ground of inconvenience raised by the petitioner and hence dispelled the same by assigning reason that replies can be filed through online mode and thus the question of physical inconvenience is obviated. At the end, the impugned order raises the cause of serving public interest of coordinated, meaningful and joint assessment in all related cases. 5. After having heard learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is not impressed with the contentions of the petitioner, for the reasons infra. (i) The relevant provision of Section 127 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of income tax and prevent tax evasion, which is the ultimate object behind the IT Act. 6.1 As such the test of the validity of an order passed u/S. 127 is as to whether the larger public interest and the object behind the IT Act is served or not. 7. When the impugned order of transfer is tested on the anvil of the aforesaid interpretation and object behind u/S. 127 of the IT Act, it is seen that adequate and sufficient reasons (supra) which appear to be cogent are assigned while taking the impugned decision. The principles of natural justice were duly complied with by issuance of show cause notice on 04.03.2022 and taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner to the same before passing the impugned order. 8. In this view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
