TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing though asked for, was not granted. Such hearing was granted, but not availed of. Despite such observations, we did not find that in the present case, the procedure adopted by the concerned authority in passing the impugned order passes the test of following the principles of natural justice which would include fair hearing. We have reproduced the entire show cause notice issued to the Petitioner, which merely conveyed to him that search and survey action was carried out in case of Ranka Group of cases and the Petitioner should therefore, submit an objection to his assessments being centralized. This show cause notice no where points out how the Petitioner was connected with the said Ranka Group and what useful purpose would be served in centralizing his assessments with the said group of assessee. Far more importantly, in the impugned order, the Pr. CIT of Mumbai has relied on various statements of the assessees of the said group, on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that it would be necessary to centralize the Petitioner's assessments with the said group of assessees also In this portion thus, the Pr. CIT referred to the statements of one Abhinandan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntralization of your case to DCIT/ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Pune date of search Survey 20.10.2016 reg. Kindly refer to the above. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune, has sent a proposal to centralize your case with DCIT/ACIT Central Circle- 2(1), Pune consequent to the search and survey action carried out on 20.10.2016 in the case of Ranka Group of cases. You are requested to submit your objection if any, to the proposed centralization within five days from the receipt of this letter, failing which it will be presumed that you have no objection to the proposed centralization and accordingly order u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will be passed centralizing your case with DCIT/ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Pune under the charge of Pr. CIT (Central), Pune. 3. In response to such notice, the Petitioner raised detailed objections under a communication dated 6th March, 2017 contending inter-alia that the proposed exercise of the powers was impermissible. The Petitioner had no dealings with any person in the Ranka group. The need to centralize the Petitioner's assessments with the said group of assessees therefore, did not arise. The Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even personal hearing was allowed. The Petitioner did not avail of the opportunity. The Principal Commissioner, Mumbai has passed the impugned order. His concurrence to the proposal for transfer of the assessments is thus writ large of the face of the record. Such concurrence does not have to be stated in any precise words or any particular format. As long as the concurrence can be culled out from the record, the same would be sufficient compliance to the requirement of Section 127 of the Act. 8. At the outset, we may record that when the assessment of an Assessee is being transferred from one Commissionerate to another, the requirement of hearing and following the principle of natural justice is inbuilt in the statutory provisions contained in Section 127 of the Act. Several courts have taken such a view. It is not necessary to load this judgment with all such pronouncements. Reference to a decision of this Court in case of Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Sharda Sabhagruha, S.P.College Campus, Pune V/s. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) and Ors. 2013 SCC Online 379 would suffice. In the said case, the Court quashed the order of transfer of assessment on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh asked for, was not granted. Such hearing was granted, but not availed of. 11. Despite such observations, we did not find that in the present case, the procedure adopted by the concerned authority in passing the impugned order passes the test of following the principles of natural justice which would include fair hearing. We have reproduced the entire show cause notice issued to the Petitioner, which merely conveyed to him that search and survey action was carried out in case of Ranka Group of cases and the Petitioner should therefore, submit an objection to his assessments being centralized. This show cause notice no where points out how the Petitioner was connected with the said Ranka Group and what useful purpose would be served in centralizing his assessments with the said group of assessees. 12. Far more importantly, in the impugned order, the Principal Commissioner of Mumbai has relied on various statements of the assessees of the said group, on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that it would be necessary to centralize the Petitioner's assessments with the said group of assessees also. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
