TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner that their reply was not considered is incorrect. We find from the reply of the petitioners that they themselves consented for centralization of the case but contended that instead of centralizing them at Agra it should be centralized at Delhi. We find from the draft show cause notice that most of the business activities including the corporate office of the petitioners are at Agra and though the residential premises of petitioner nos. 3 and 4 is at Delhi, their residential premises is being used as a registered office of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 nonetheless, no business activities of substantial nature is being carried out from this premises, whereas substantial business activities are being done through Agra only. In the light of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 7. The petitioners submitted a reply belatedly on 19.01.2015. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi thereafter passed the order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act transferring the case of petitioner nos. 1 to 5 to the DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Agra. Similarly, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad also passed an order dated 13.02.2015 transferring the case to the concerned officer at Agra with regard to the assessment of the petitioner nos. 6 and 7. The petitioners, being aggrieved by both the orders, have filed the present writ petition contending that principles of natural justice was violated, inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners and that the impugned order does not contain any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners are located in Delhi and three of the petitioners are located in Bulandshahar, it was essential that the assessment proceedings with regard to the search and seizure is centralized, which in the instant case has been done pursuant to the proposal of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Kanpur. We find that there has been no arbitrariness in the decision taken by the respondents in the instant case. The contention of the petitioner that their reply was not considered is incorrect. We find from the reply of the petitioners that they themselves consented for centralization of the case but contended that instead of centralizing them at Agra it should be centralized at Delhi. We find from the draft show cause notice that most of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
