TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be transferred from Mumbai to New Delhi. These proceedings for transfer of the petitioners case was initiated on report instituted by communication dated 30 August 2011 from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central 6) New Delhi seeking to centralization of the petitioners' case at Delhi. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 7 March 2013, the Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai has transferred the petitioner's case from Mumbai to New Delhi. Thus, there is an agreement between the Commissioners of Income Tax, New Delhi and Mumbai as required in terms of section 127(2)(a) of the Act was available. Therefore, this objection was not sustainable. The decision of SAHARA HOSPITALITY LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 AND OTHERS [ 2013 (10) TMI 289 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was followed. In view of all the above reasons, Court did not find any reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. - WRIT PETITION NO. 1433 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2013 - MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ. AND M.S. SANKLECHA, J Mr. Jahangir Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parab Khandhar and Mr. Sagar Kulkarni i/by DSK Legal for the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruary 2013 raising various objections to the proposed transfer. However, by the impugned order dated 7 March 2013, Commissioner of Income Tax-8 Mumbai did not accept the petitioners' objections and has transferred the petitioners case from Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-8(1), Mumbai to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, New Delhi. The impugned order transfers the case of the petitioners as above for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation and assessment after giving the following findings:- I find that the assessee has not refuted the fact that it is an entity of the Sahara Group and that it has substantial financial transaction with the various group entitles. 6. Mr. J.D. Mistry, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has urged the following contentions challenging the impugned order. (a) The impugned order has been passed on the basis that petitioners belong to the Sahara Group and has substantial transactions with various other group entities in the group. Show cause notice i.e. order dated 5 January 2012 (was to be treated as show cause notice by the order dated 24 January 2013) proposed to transfer the case to Deputy Commissioner of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer a case from one jurisdiction to another, then this Court will not interfere with the discretion of the administrative authority who transfers the case. This discretion is vested by the Act in high ranking officer viz. Commissioner of Income Tax and the necessity to transfer a case from the jurisdiction of one Officer to another Officer for better administration of the Act could be diverse and impossible to enumerate. It is for the above reason that Section 127 of the Act has not limited the exercise of jurisdiction by specifying any circumstances before the authority can exercise his powers to transfer the case. One more fact which cannot be lost sight of is that an assessee cannot choose his Assessing Officer and, therefore, if the transfer order does indicate some valid reasons to justify the transfer and such reasons are neither perverse or arbitrary or malafide this Court would not interfere with the reasonable exercise of his discretion. 9. So far as first ground as urged by Mr. Mistry that the impugned order goes much beyond the Show Cause Notice is concerned, we find that in the show cause notice (order dated 5 January 2012) it is mentioned as under:- It is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o deal with the same can arise. Moreover, as pointed out above, the order of transfer under Section 127 of the Act has to indicate that there is due application of mind and the transfer is not malafide and/or the impugned order is not perverse. 11. As regards the third contention of Mr. Mistry, that the petitioners is regularly assessed to tax in Mumbai. The impugned order gives no reasons as to how the transfer of the petitioners' case from Mumbai to Delhi was necessitated for co-ordinated investigation and assessment. The recording of reasons for co-ordinated investigation is necessary in view of the discussion of this Court in Global Energy (P) Ltd. (supra). We find that the above decision will have no application to the present facts. This is so, as the impugned order does give reasons for co-ordinated investigation i.e. the petitioners are a part of the Sahara Group of the Companies and the petitioners had substantial transactions and investments in other entities of the Sahara Group particularly-Sahara Adventures Sports (Pvt.) Ltd. which is assessed in Delhi with DCIT, Central Circle-6 to whom the petitioners case is transferred. 12. As regards the fourth contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
