Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 553 - HC - Income TaxTransferring the case from DCIT,Cor.Cir.1(1), Chennai to DCIT, Central Circle 3 (4), Mumbai u/s 127 - Held that:- A perusal of the said communication does not anywhere indicate the intention of Department to transfer the petitioner's own case from Chennai to Mumbai. On the other hand, a careful perusal of the said notice would only show that the respondent Department sought to centralize the Radford Group case with Mumbai, for which, they sought a reply from the petitioner under Section 127 (2). No doubt, the petitioner has stated in their reply dated 02.03.2016 that they have no objection for centralization of the above cases with Mumbai. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a thorough perusal of the reply dated 02.03.2016 would undoubtedly indicate that the petitioner has given their no objection for centralization of the Radford case with Mumbai, also by specifically stating that they have no client registered under the name and style RADFORD/RADFORD GROUP. The very notice issued under section 127 (2) to the petitioner dated 23.02.2016 is bereft of material particulars indicating specifically that the petitioner case is sought to be transferred from Chennai to Mumbai to be tagged along with the Radford Group cases. In the absence of such material particulars, we do not think that the No Objection given by the petitioner, that too, for centralization of the Radford Group cases can have any barring or relevance on the impugned transfer order. Apart from the above said fact, it is curious to note that the 1st respondent, while passing the order on 04.04.2016 has not at all referred to the reply given by the petitioner on 02.03.2016. Hence, it is the bounden duty of the 1st respondent to record the reasons for transfer, especially, when section 127(2) contemplates the recording of such reasons. In this case, it has not been done so. The matter has to go back to the 1st respondent for passing fresh order after issuing notice to the petitioner with material particulars and after hearing their objections
|