9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, Junior Standing Counsel in W.A. Nos.762, 765, 273, 278 & 365 of 2025 Mr.V.Mahalingam, Sr. Stdg. Counsel and Mrs.S.Premalatha, Jr.Stdg.Counsel for W.A. No.761 of 2025 Dr.B.Ramasamy, Sr. Stdg. Counsel in W.A. Nos.418, 421, 426 & 427 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT S.S.SUNDAR, J. All the above writ appeals arise against the similar orders passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants, challenging the proceedings under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of the impugned notification of the first respondent, writ petitions filed by the appellants, writ appeals and the date of orders passed by the writ court, are as follows: Sl. No. W.A. Number Impugned Notification of R1 W.P. No. & the date of the order 1. 760 of 2025 Notification No.01/2024-25 u/s. 127 of the Act dated 17.05.2024 in DIN & Letter No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1064981571(1) 17340 of 2024/ 29.08.2024 2. 762 of 2025 -do- 17761 of 2024/29.08.2024 3. 765 of 2025 -do- 17357 of 2024/29.08.2024 4. 273 of 2025 -do- 17765 of 2024/29.08.2024 5. 278 of 2025 -do- 17756 of 2024/29.08.2024 6. 365 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cases should be considered together at one place so that there would be a meaningful and coordinated investigation. 5. In response to the show-cause notice, a reply was submitted by the appellants mainly on the ground that there is no finding involving the appellants and further stated that the Registered office of the appellants is located in Coimbatore or Chennai, as the case may be, the appellants contended that it is not possible for them to travel to Kolkata to present their case before the authorities at Kolkata. Further, it is also indicated that it would be expensive for the appellants to arrange or hire a local lawyer to conduct their cases. Since the authorities at Coimbatore or Chennai, as the case may be, is competent to undertake the assessment proceedings in the cases of the appellants, they have raised their objections for transferring the files of the appellants to Kolkata for centralised assessment. 6. After receiving the reply from the appellants, the impugned orders/notification were served on all the appellants, details of which have been stated in the tabulation mentioned supra. In all the impugned orders, the following reasons are given: "5. At the outs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all other powers enabling me in this behalf, I, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cnetral-2, Chennai, hereby transfer the jurisdiction over the cases, the particulars of which are mentioned in column No.(2)&(3) of the schedule from the Assessing Officer, mentioned in Column No.(4) to the Assessing Officer mentioned in Column No.(5) for the purpose of coordinated investigation in Lottery Group (Date of Search : 12/10/2023) 7. Challenging the impugned orders/notification, the appellants have filed writ petitions raising the following grounds: (a) The impugned order passed by the first respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice; (b) A reasonable opportunity envisaged under Section 127 of the Act was not given to the petitioners/appellants; (c) sufficient time was not given to the petitioners/appellants to show cause or to file their objections; (d) There is no finding in the impugned order as to whether any material seized from the premises of the appellants connect the appellants with the assessees on whose behalf the search and seizure was conducted; and (e) By virtue of the impugned order/notification, the assessees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where the [Principal Directors General or Directors General] or [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such [Principal Directors General or Directors General] or [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or [Principal Commissioner 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, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Income-tax reported in [2023] 152 taxmann.com 340 (Bombay), when transfer was ordered to transfer the assessee's assessment to enable a coordinated assessment along with the assessment in the case of another group. In the course of enquiry no incriminating material was found to connect either the assessee or his company with the other group. It is in the factual premises, it has been held as follows: "12. From a reading of the order impugned passed under Section 127(2) of the Act, it can be seen that the same does not at all reflect as to why it was necessary to transfer the jurisdiction from DCIT-19(3), Mumbai to DCIT Cnetral Circle-3, Jaipur. None of the issues raised by the petitioner have been dealt with either in the order dated 21 November 2022 disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner much less have the same been reflected in the order impugned under section 127(2) of the Act. The assessing officer appears to have acted very mechanically treating the request from DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur, as if it was binding upon him. In our opinion, the said request was not at all binding inasmuch as if it was so, then the agreement envisaged under section 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting material in respect of the assessee was discovered and the assessee was called on to furnish the details of income earned by him for certain years. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee and ultimately it was held that for administrative convenience and coordinated investigation, the transfer was necessitated. It is in this context, the Division Bench, held as follows: "36. As it is obstensibly clear that the Revenue before passing the impugned order dated 20 February 2024 has provided the opportunity of hearing to the assessee [Mark Gulati] and considered the assessee's [Mark Gulati] objections, thus, the order would reflect that the Revenue had duly applied its mind and powers under Section 127 was invoked on the grounds of administrative convenience and meaningful assessment. 37. It is imperative to point out that it is crystal clear in light of the discussion noted above that the powers of Section 127 of the Act can be invoked for public interest and administrative convenience. Furthermore, the ground of 'coordinated investigation' is a good ground of transfer as upheld by various decisions quoted above. 38. Furthermore, considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
