2025 (5) TMI 525 - HC - Income Tax

Centralisation of assessment in the case of various group entities - incriminating documents are seized from multiple premises of related companies - HELD THAT - Division Bench of this Court after referring to the decision of Dollar Gulati 2024 (5) TMI 456 - DELHI HIGH COURT which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the Mark Gulati V. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 2024 (7) TMI 1091 - SC ORDER as held when the documents are seized from different premises of a group of companies/concerns it is necessary for all the cases to be centralised or considered together at one place so that there will be a coordinated investigation. The object of Section 127 is to meet situations as in the present case. The appellants admit that they are a group of companies may be carrying on different business. There is no mala fides alleged in this case as against the first respondent in any of the cases for passing the impugned order for transferring the cases from the office of the second respondent to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(4) Kolkata under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The power under Section 127 is not circumscribed or limited by express language. We find no reasons to doubt the bona fides in this case. Present appeals and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.

Summary

The Madras High Court, through Justice Anita Sumanth, upheld the centralisation of assessment proceedings under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in cases involving group entities. Relying on precedent from the Delhi High Court in *Dollar Gulati v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax* (471 ITR 96), affirmed by the Supreme Court in *Mark Gulati v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax* (469 ITR 1), the Court emphasized that when incriminating documents are seized from multiple premises of related companies, assessments must be centralized for coordinated investigation. The Court found no mala fides or procedural infirmity in transferring cases to a single assessing officer, stating: "The power under Section 127 is not circumscribed or limited by express language," and confirmed the earlier order dismissing the appeals. Consequently, for uniformity, the present appeals and connected petitions were dismissed without costs.