TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portunity of responding to the MOU – assessee rightly contended that the impugned order is clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of section 127 and the judgments of Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali Sharda Sabhagruha Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax ] (Central) and others [2013 (3) TMI 153 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - the entire proceeding transferring the case from Pune to Mumbai is in breach of principles of natural justice – Decided in favour of Assessee. - Writ Petition No. 1333 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2014 - S. J. Vazifdar And A. K. Menon,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Murlidharan With Mr. Madhur Aggrwal And Mr. Atul K. Jasani For the Respondent : A. R. Malhotra JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.2012 which allegedly belongs to him and based on which the said notice dated 12.10.2012 was issued. There was no response to the letter. 6. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 05.12.2012 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Mumbai. The notice informed that a search and seizure operation was conducted on Sureshchandra Agarwal and others ; that the petitioner's case is related to the searched group ; that the searched group is being assessed in the charge of CIT (Central), Hyderabad and that the petitioner's case was proposed to be centralized with DCIT, Hyderabad, respondent No.2, for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation and administrative convenience. The petitioner was directed to submit his objections, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warded by respondent No.2 at any time. As we noted earlier, the petitioner by his letter dated 26.10.2012 requested respondent No.2 for copies of the material / documents / accounts etc. seized during the search based on which the notice dated 12.10.2012 was served upon him by respondent No.2. There was no response from respondent No.2 to the said letter. It is of vital importance to note that even during the personal hearing, the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the MOU. The MOU was not even referred to by respondent No.1. The MOU was referred to for the first time only in the impugned order. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had filed an affidavit before respondent No.1. The affidavit was forwarded under cover o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory, wherever it is possible to do so. 12. In any view of the matter, the entire proceeding transferring the case from Pune to Mumbai is in breach of principles of natural justice. This is for the reason that the impugned order dated 2/8/2012 gave various reasons supporting/justifying the conclusion therein. However, while calling upon the Petitioner to show cause on 8/2/2012 to the proposed transfer none of the reasons found in support of the impugned order dated 2/8/2012 were mentioned in the show cause notice. 14. None of the above grounds which find place in the impugned order was ever put to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order. 15. The giving of notice containing the reasons for the proposed action is a basic postul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r :- From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that, in the matter of the transfer of a case under section 127 of the Act, it is necessary that the authority which proposes to transfer the case must, wherever it is possible to do so, give the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard with a view to enable him to effectively show cause against the proposed transfer. The notice must also propose to give a personal hearing. It is also necessary to mention in the notice the reasons for the proposed transfer so that the assessee could make an effective representation with reference to the reasons set out. It is not sufficient merely to say in the notice that the transfer is proposed to facilitate detailed and coordinated investigatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
