9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sonable opportunity of hearing and recording the reasons for the same. As per the provisions of section 127 of the Act, requirement of transferring the assessment in appropriate cases would have element of public interest and the assessee has no choice to select his Assessing Officer. Therefore, respondent no. 1 has passed the corrigendum order by providing further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide notice dated 21.12.2024 so as to comply with the mandatory requirement of providing opportunity of hearing and after recording the reasons, case is found to be fit to be transferred from Vadodara to Pune. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that impugned notice and order being corrigendum notice and order containing further details is without jurisdiction, is not tenable as the same are in continuation of order dated 29.11.2023 so as to comply with the provisions of the Act to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not filed any reply to the notice dated 21.12.2024 and now it is contended that the petitioner did not file reply as the said corrigendum notice referred to details relied upon to transfer case. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending the hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause "B". E. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause "C"; F. For costs of this petition; G. For any other relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-assessee who is a resident of Vadodara received an intimation from respondent no. 1 on 9th November, 2023 along with notice issued under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short "the Act") with regard to transfer of case of the petitioner to Pune on the ground that the petitioner was having significant suspicious cash transactions with M/s. G.K. Associates which is assessed with DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Pune and therefore, in the interest of Revenue, case of the petitioner was sought to be transferred to Pune. 4. The petitioner furnished reply vide an email dated 20.11.2023 addressed to respondent no. 1 with an attached letter dated 18.11.2023 contending as to why the case should not be transferred to Pune. 5. Respondent no. 1 however passed an order under section 127 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014) 51 taxmann.com 262 (Allahabad). 13. It was submitted that the impugned order dated 02.01.2025 being a corrigendum order also goes beyond what is contained in the show cause notice dated 21.12.2024 as reliance was placed by the respondent upon the letter dated 09.12.2024 received from PCIT(Central) Pune as well as the statements of Shri Vinod Chandwani and Shri Kiran Chandwani of G.K. Associates and also report of the DDIT which was never provided to the petitioner. It was therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside, and the matter may be remanded to the respondent to enable the petitioner to file a reply and pass a fresh de novo order. 14. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was provided an opportunity of hearing vide impugned show cause notice dated 21.12.2024, however, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity and hence, the petitioner need not be given a further opportunity of hearing and as the impugned order is based upon the material available with the respondent, so as to transfer the case of the petitioner to Central Circle, Pune. 15. It was further submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes as well as the reply dated 18.11.2023 filed by the petitioner. 19. In such circumstances, reference made to the information received from PCIT Central Pune as well as report of DCIT (Investigation), Pune dated 3.12.202 referred to and relied upon and for the purpose of transfer of case is justified and the copies of the same are not required to be given to the petitioner as the petitioner has not denied the transactions entered into by the petitioner with M/s. G.K. Associates. On perusal of the objections raised by the petitioner vide letter dated 18.11.2023 it appears that petitioner has objected such transfer on the ground of inconvenience, harassment and cumbersome to him. 20. Section 124 of the Act pertains to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and section 124(1) of the Act reads as under: "124. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers. (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer has been vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of such area, he shall have jurisdiction- (a) in respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if the place at which he carri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner or] Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) and the offices of all such officers are situated in the same city, locality or place. (4) The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the re-issue of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is transferred. Explanation.-In section 120 and this section, the word "case", in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act51 in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the other Group cases. 4.2.1 The contentions raised are examined carefully and it is found that as per information received from PCIT(Central), Pune vide letter dated 09/12/2024, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of M/s. G.K. Associates (Proprietorship Concern of Shri Vinod Chandwani) and SSD Group on 04.05.2023. One of the key employees of M/s. G.K. Associates is Shri Kiran Chandwani who is a sales executive and the WhatsApp chats retrieved from Shri Kiran Chandwani reveal that he was responsible for safekeeping of cash and maintaining records of unaccounted cash transactions pertaining to G.K. Associates (on the instructions of Vinod Chandwani). From the WhatsApp chat of Shri Kiran Chandwani, details of certain transactions with Vishal Talreja of Baroda were found. Shri Kiran Chandwani, in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act in search proceedings has identified Vishal Talreja as the party in his whats App chat. Further, it has been established during the post search investigation that cash transactions have occurred between M/s. G.K. Associates Group/Vinod Chandwani and Vishal Darshanlal Talreja. Further, as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ost search enquiries were conducted does not appear to be correct. 4.3 The assessee has relied on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sagarmal Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited vs CBDT, wherein it is stated that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided and reasons for transfer must be recorded. As in the case of the assessee, the opportunity of being heard has been duly provided vide this office notice dated 09.11.2023, 21.12.2023 and 21.12.2024 and the submission of the assessee has been duly considered in this order. The reasons requiring centralization of case are duly recorded in preceding paras. Hence, the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Court are duly complied with. Further the assessee has relied on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ramswaroop vs. CIT 388 ITR 208 to argue that reasons for transfer cannot be vague and general in nature, but must be specific. In this regard the digital evidence and statement recorded during the search and post-search proceedings indicate cash transactions with M/s. G.K. Associates which require centralization for co-ordinated investigatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the coordinated investigation and assessment in interest of revenue and for public purposes, the case of Shri Vishal Talreja being a related person is also required to be centralized with DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Pune." 25. In case of Asharapura Enterprise v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 (judgment dated 10.03.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 20409 of 2019 and other allied matters), the coordinate Bench of this court while considering the provisions of section 127 of the Act, referring to decisions of various other Hon'ble High Courts as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as decision of this Court in case of Genus Electrotech Ltd. v. Union of India and others reported in (2018) 402 ITR 221 has observed as under: "27 We have already noted the reasons for the transfer of assessment. We may refer to a decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shree Ram Vessel Scrap P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in (2013) 355 ITR 255 (Guj), wherein this Court had upheld the stance of the Revenue that for effective and coordinative investigation, if otherwise established on the record, the same can be a good ground for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vested right to insist that his assessment be completed only at one place or by a particular Assessing Officer, nevertheless, the reasons for transfer must be weighty enough to offset against such personal inconvenience of an assessee. In exercise of power under Section 127 thus we are concerned with larger public interest on one hand and personal 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 to dissect such reasons and to come to a different conclusion would be extremely limited. It is by now well settled that judicial review against the administrative order 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. Of course an order of such nature can and need to be quashed if it is demonstrated that same is passed either without jurisdiction or is actuated by mala fide either in fact or in law." 28 In the case of Aamby Vall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice in this case. The argument, thus, that no chance to effectively represent the case was provided has no merit." 30 In Pannalal Binraj vs. Union of India, reported in (1957) 31 ITR 565, the Supreme Court observed while upholding the power of transfer that, inconvenience to the assessee or likelihood of misuse of the provision could not be a ground to declare the said provision to be void, but if there was abuse of the power, appropriate remedy could be taken. The relevant observations reads thus : "It follows, therefore, that Section 5 (7A) of the Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and also does not impose any unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade or business enshrined in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. If there is any abuse of power it can be remedied by appropriate action either under Article 226 or under Article 32 of the Constitution and what can be struck down is not the provision contained in Section 5 (7A) of the Act but the order passed thereunder which may be mala fide or violative of these fundamental rights. This challenge of the vires of Section 5 (7A) of the Act, therefore, fails." 31 We may also refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
