TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - In the circumstances in the interest of revenue, it was found necessary to centralize the petitioner assessment at Varanasi – Decided against petitioner. - Writ Tax No. - 350 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Petitioner : Praveen Kumar For the Respondent : A.S.G.I.,C.S.C. ORDER 1. We have heard Sri Praveen Kumar for the petitioner. No one appears for the department. Sri Dhananjay Awasthi has filed counter affidavit of Sri S.K. Agnihoti, Inspector of Income-Tax. Kanpur, on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company, registered at Kanpur. It does not carry on any business activity at Kanpur, and has a biscuit manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nia family at Varanasi. The search was conducted on the Companies/ concerns of Didwania's Group, and not on the petitioner's Company. In paras 9 to 16 of its reply, it was stated:- "9. That the petitioner company M.P. Biscuits Pvt Ltd., is no where and in no manner related to Didwania Group. 10. That all day to day management and control over the company, is being conduced from Kanpur. 11. That the petitioner company does not fit in the conglomerate of Didwania Group of cases. It has nothing to do with Didwania Group or its affairs. It is an independent, separately set up carrying on business where there is no interlacing or inter funding or inter banking transactions with any other entity of Didwania family or concerns. 12. That it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as Tax Consultants of the company both are based at Kanpur." 6. The Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Kanpur made the impugned order on 30.09.2010, centralizing the cases at Varanasi as follows:- "The facts as mentioned by the assessee company have been considered and noticed that the same is not acceptable. It is necessary to centralize the case or coordinated investigation because the petitioner company is a private limited company in which the two Didwania brothers are directors who are covered u/s 132 of the I.T. Act 1961. Further, the assessee's contention for not centralizing his case at Varanasi as it had no office or infrastructure at that place. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sahara Airlines Ltd and others Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted." 7. Sri Praveen Kumar, appearing for the petitioner submits that no reasons are given in the notice dated 16.09.2010 under Section 127 of the Act, for centralizing the cases at Varanasi. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice dated 16.09.2010, that Didwania brothers were taken on the Board of the Company in the year 2004, as directors. Their shareholding was only one-third of the total shares. The search was conducted on the companies/concerns of Didwania's Group and not on the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company has no interlacing, inter-funding or inter-banking transaction with any entity of Didwania family or concerns. The reasons given by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur in the impugned order dated 30.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the aforesaid ground and the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee would have a right to object by filing written representation/objections and thereafter the authority concerned, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, would pass an order either accepting the objections or the pleas raised by the assessee, or giving his own reasons for not accepting the same. The latter exercise would be incorporated and reduced into writing, which would meet the requirement of recording of reasons in the order. The reasons so recorded, have to be relevant and germane to the issues raised, which can be supported by documentary evidence or such evidence, as may be available, but if the reasons are absurd or non-existent, mere recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings to Varanasi. The transfer of assessment proceedings would cause prejudice to the petitioner, as the quasi judicial powers must be exercised by Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur, after adhering to the principles of natural justice. 10. We do not find that the facts of the case In Sahara Airlines Ltd (Supra) are similar to the facts of the present case. The proposition of law in Sahara Airlines Ltd (Supra) was based on its own facts. In the present case, the Company was assessed at Kanpur where it has no office or business at all. The entire business was carried out at Varanasi where search was conducted, and in which the petitioner surrendered Rs.60 lacs and thereafter another Rs.15 lacs during the course of inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
