9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erring the Petitioner s case. The reasons cited, such as the presence of incriminating material and reliance on CBDT instructions, are vague and unsubstantiated. Moreover, no supporting documentation or prima facie evidence was provided to demonstrate the relevance or existence of such material. The statutory mandate for the application of mind and proper reasoning u/s 127 (2) was not fulfilled. Respondents failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirement of agreement between the jurisdictional Principal Commissioners, as required by law. The absence of documented concurrence between the respondent no. 3 herein the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, and respondent no. 4 herein the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Patna, is a significant procedural lapse, vitiating the legality of the transfer order. Respondents argument that the transfer was necessitated for coordinated investigation and meaningful assessment holds merit only when supported by valid reasons and material evidence. In the present case, the purported need for coordination is not substantiated by specific or credible evidence linking the Petitioner s assessment to the alleged concealment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uctions under CBDT Instruction No. 05/2001. However, no such instructions were attached. 7. The Petitioner objected to this proposal through a detailed letter dated December 19, 2023, emphasizing the absence of incriminating documents or valid grounds for transfer and highlighting that the Petitioner neither resides nor conducts business in Dhanbad. The Petitioner sought a copy of any material relied upon but did not receive any further response. 8. The respondent no. 3, did not provide an opportunity of being heard or supply the incriminating material, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements under Section 127 (2). 9. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dhanbad, without proper intimation to the Petitioner. 10. The Petitioner later received a notice under Section 148A (b), dated March 30, 2024, and notices under Section 142 (1) for various assessment years from the Dhanbad Assessing Officer, which were objected to by the Petitioner on jurisdictional grounds. 11. The Petitioner, having received no copy of the transfer order despite requests, filed an RTI applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and disclosed to the assessee. 17. The Petitioner relies upon authoritative judicial precedents underscoring the procedural and substantive requirements under Section 127 (2). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mul Chand Malu v. Union of India reported in (2016) 383 ITR 367 emphasized that actions under Section 127 (2) must be based on cogent material. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Kamalnath v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Ors. reported in (2023) 453 of ITR 588 set aside a transfer for violation of natural justice, holding that materials supporting the transfer and their relevance must be disclosed to the affected party. 18. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the transfer order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was duly passed by the respondent no. 3, on March 21,2024, after following the statutory provisions and affording sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to present their case. The Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition in August 2024, belatedly, despite being aware that the assessment proceedings are time-barred in March 2025. This delay indicates an attempt to derail the statutory proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive necessities. 24. Upon a thorough examination of the documents presented to the Court and taking into account the arguments put forth by the parties, this Court allows the writ petition on the grounds that the transfer order issued under Section 127 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is found to be procedurally flawed. The respondent no. 3 herein the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Despite the Petitioner s detailed objections to the proposed transfer and a request for the disclosure of incriminating material, no opportunity of being heard was provided and the requested material was not furnished. Such omissions violate the procedural safeguards enshrined under Section 127 (2), rendering the transfer order invalid. 25. The impugned order also lacks cogent reasons to justify the necessity of transferring the Petitioner s case. The reasons cited, such as the presence of incriminating material and reliance on CBDT instructions, are vague and unsubstantiated. Moreover, no supporting documentation or prima facie evidence was provided to demonstrate the relevance or existence of such material. The statutory mandate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
