TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In fact, in this case the showcause notice is itself bereft of particulars save and except merely coordinated investigation and administrative convenience making it impossible to effectively respond. Nevertheless, the petitioner had itself pointed out the inconvenience which would be caused to it and the arbitrary nature of the transfer of petitioner's assessment to Aurangabad. This objection was not appropriately considered and dealt with in this case. Therefore, the aforesaid decision also has no application to the present facts. Transfer orders dismissed. - Writ Petition No. 869 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 18-4-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. C. Tiwari a/w Ms. Rutuja Pawar For the Respondent : Mr. Nirmal Mohanty JUDGMENT ( Per M. S. Sanklecha, J. ) 1. This petition was admitted and Rule issued on 14th March, 2016. At the request of the Counsel, the petition was expedited and fixed for hearing on 16th April, 2016. Thus, the petition was partly heard on 16th April, 2016 and concluded today. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 21st December, 2015 passed by the Princ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax passed an order under Section 127(2) of the Act transferring the petitioner's case from from Mumbai to Aurangabad. The basis of the transfer as recorded in the order dated 18th February, 2015 was letter from D.I.T. (Investigation) Nagpur, which purports to record that the search and seizure was carried out in the premises of the petitioner, which is related to the Jhaveri Group. In the above view, for the purpose of coordinated investigation, the petitioner's case was transferred from Mumbai to ACIT, Central Circle, Aurangabad. (g) Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order dated 18th February, 2015 before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1204 of 2015. By an order dated 18th June, 2015, this Court quashed and set aside the order dated 18th February, 2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 127(2) of the Act. This on the ground that the order relied upon a letter from Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Nagpur for the purposes of transferring the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Aurangabad even without having made the same available to the petitioner. This resulted in the petitioner not making appropriate submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case is made out. 6. Thereafter, on 3rd November, 2015, at the personal hearing granted to the petitioner by the Commissioner of Income Tax, two pages of seized documents namely 72 and 74 along with the statements of one Abhishek Jhaveri and one Mr. Vipul Rajnikant Khona dated 20th August, 2014 and 14th October, 2014 respectively were given to the petitioner. Consequent to receipt of these documents on 24th November, 2015, the petitioner filed a further reply resisting the proposed transfer of the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Aurangabad. In its reply the petitioner further pointed out that it appears that the entire basis of transferring the case are two loose papers discovered while carrying out search of the Jhaveri Group. In the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to transfer the entire assessment jurisdiction of the petitioner's to Aurangabad. 7. On 21st December, 2015, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax passed the impugned order transferring the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Aurangabad. This essentially, on the ground that one of the buyers namely Abhishek Jhaveri had become a witness for the Department having admitted to paying cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of Rajastan High Court in Rishikul Vidyapeeth Vs. Union of India, 136 ITR 139. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax had originally passed an order dated 18th February, 2015 transferring the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Aurangabad on the basis of a letter of D.I.T. (Investigation), Nagpur informing the Commissioner of Income Tax that a search and seizure operation was carried out in respect of the petitioner who in turn is related to the Jhaveri group of Aurangabad. The aforesaid order dated 18th February, 2015 of the Commissioner of Income Tax was set aside as copy of the aforesaid intimation was not given to the petitioner by the Revenue. Further, the petitioner's submissions / objections to the proposed transfer was not considered in the order dated 18th February, 2015. This Court while setting aside the order dated 18th February, 2014 by an order dated 18th June, 2015 granted liberty to the Revenue to pass a fresh order after following the principles of natural justice. 11. We find that consequent thereto neither the showcause notice nor the impugned order dated 21st December, 2015 make any referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without the party knowing what inference is being drawn therefrom, the requirement of natural justice is not met. This is so as the party is left guessing as to the inference drawn by the Commissioner of Income Tax from documents for proposing the transfer from Mumbai to Auranbagad. This itself would lead to a breach of principles of natural justice. 13. Moreover, we find that the impugned order does not deal with the petitioner's submissions as contained in its letter dated 14th July, 2015 inter alia pointing out that only 3 flats out of 78 flats in the building being constructed in Vile Parle had been sold by the petitioner to the members of the Jhaveri Group. In case, the petitioner's assessments are to be transferred to the places where its customers (purchaser of its flats) are being assessed, then, the petitioner's cases would have to be transferred to at various places where its customers resides. This is an impossibility. Further, where transaction take place in the course of its business and a search takes place on such other persons at the place where such person is assessed, it would not necessarily result in the transfer of petitioner's case to the pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
