Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (1) TMI 1505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was provided and the requested material was not furnished. Petitioner was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations due to inadequate notice for the hearing scheduled on October 14, 2024, coinciding with the Durga Puja holidays. Despite a valid request for rescheduling, Respondent No. 1 failed to accommodate the petitioner's concerns, effectively depriving the petitioner of a fair chance to present its case. Such omissions violate the procedural safeguards enshrined u/s 127 (2), rendering the transfer order invalid. The impugned order also lacked cogent reasoning and failed to address the specific objections raised by the petitioner. The allegations of unaccounted cash payments and irregularities in the tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7, 2023, submitted its books of accounts, bank statements, and relevant agreements. 2. On February 13, 2024, Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice under Section 127 (1) of the Act, alleging that incriminating materials were found during search and survey operations conducted at the premises of entities related to the Isprava Group on June 12, 2023. The notice claimed that the Petitioner failed to account for the purchase of a 1671 sq. mt. plot, 'Alex 24K,' from one Fastgrowth Estates (P) Ltd. and made an unrecorded cash payment of Rs. 2.53 crores. Consequently, a transfer of jurisdiction over the Petitioner's PAN was proposed. 3. The Petitioner maintains that the transaction for the purchase of the said plot was duly rec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the basis for the proposed jurisdictional transfer. 8. Respondent No. 1 has failed to disclose any incriminating material or evidence justifying the allegations against the Petitioner, despite repeated requests. The absence of credible evidence renders the allegations speculative and unsustainable. 9. The Petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations due to insufficient notice and the failure of Respondent No. 1 to reschedule the hearing. This constitutes a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and procedural safeguards under Section 127 of the Act. 10. The impugned order lacks cogent reasoning and fails to address the objections raised by the Petitioner. The vague reference to "incrimin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th the entity involved in the search. The respondent authority, in its reply dated February 13, 2024 and final order dated October 4, 2024, provided detailed reasons for the transfer. A personal hearing was scheduled for October 14, 2024, but the petitioner failed to appear and the transfer order was passed on October 18, 2024, which was reflected on the ITBA portal. 16. It is further submitted that reliance on Pradeep Kr. (supra) is misplaced as that case involved procedural lapses, unlike the present case, where due process was followed and the transfer was justified by incriminating materials. The petitioner's failure to participate in the proceedings shows a deliberate attempt to impede the process. 17. Learned Counsel by citing judic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioner's concerns, effectively depriving the petitioner of a fair chance to present its case. Such omissions violate the procedural safeguards enshrined under Section 127 (2), rendering the transfer order invalid. 19. The impugned order also lacked cogent reasoning and failed to address the specific objections raised by the petitioner. The allegations of unaccounted cash payments and irregularities in the transaction were vague and unsupported by any credible evidence. The respondent's reliance on vague references to "incriminating material" without disclosing the basis or specifics of the evidence rendered the transfer order speculative and unsustainable. 20. This Court also distinguished the present case from precedent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates