TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Mr Aseem Chawla] did try to persuade us to sustain the impugned orders, having regard to the fact that coordinated investigation was necessary as Suumaya Group was in Mumbai, we are not inclined to accept the plea as the impugned orders do not even advert to the reasons stated in the letter i.e., search on Suumaya group, administrative convenience, and coordinated investigation. There were several reasons given by the petitioners as to why the transfer ought not to take place. The least the PCIT could have done was to discuss, in the briefest of terms, why these reasons did not prevail with her. It cannot be disputed that Section 127(1) required PCIT to set forth reasons in the order. What compounds the injury is that the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned orders ] dated 06.09.2023 passed under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]. 6. Two broad grounds are articulated in the writ petitions in support of the plea that the impugned orders are unsustainable in law: (i) First, that the impugned orders passed in the matters are non-speaking orders. (ii) Second, the impugned orders do not bear a Document Identification Number (DIN). 7. It is stated that in the absence of DIN, the document is non-est in law. In support of this plea, the petitioner relies on Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. 8. We may note that, before the issuance of notice, the petitioners were served with a letter dated 22.05.2023. The reason indicated in the letter for transfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner sought to portray that the business activity of the companies was being managed from their registered office located in Delhi, and accordingly, the books of accounts were also located in Delhi. To buttress this submission, the petitioners also averred that their tax consultant and authorised representative was based in Delhi; whose services, perhaps, were required to progress its legal interest. 11. It is not in dispute that the aforementioned response, for whatever it was worth, was filed before the concerned officer i.e., PCIT-15, New Delhi. The concerned officer, while passing the impugned order, has not said a word as to what prevailed with her in directing the transfer of the petitioners cases to DCIT, Mumbai. This fact is ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation was necessary as Suumaya Group was in Mumbai, we are not inclined to accept the plea as the impugned orders do not even advert to the reasons stated in the letter i.e., search on Suumaya group, administrative convenience, and coordinated investigation. 13. As indicated above, there were several reasons given by the petitioners as to why the transfer ought not to take place. The least the PCIT could have done was to discuss, in the briefest of terms, why these reasons did not prevail with her. It cannot be disputed that Section 127(1) required PCIT to set forth reasons in the order. For convenience, the provision is extracted hereafter: 127. (1) The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstitution in an appropriate case for challenging the order, inter alia, either on the ground that it is mala fide or arbitrary or that it is based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Whether such a writ or special leave application ultimately fails is not relevant for a decision of the question. We are clearly of opinion that the requirement of recording reasons under section 127(1) is a mandatory direction under the law and noncommunication thereof is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee. xxx xxx xxx We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that non-communication of the reasons in the order passed under section 127(1) is a serious infirmity in the order for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
