TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order dated 2nd July, 2018 without jurisdiction. The impugned order dated 2nd January, 2018 and the impugned notice dated 14th February, 2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. Petition allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. - Writ Petition No. 2699 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA, SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. Jehangir Mestri, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Niraj Sheth i/by. MINT CONFRERES, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.N. Singh, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT ( PER : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) 1. This Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 2nd January, 2018 passed by respondent no.1 purportedly under Section 127(2) of the Indian In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 127(2) of the said Act. 5. The petitioner raised objections to the proposed transfer vide reply dated 20th February, 2017 and pointed out the difficulties which he may have to face if the case is transferred from Kolhapur to Mumbai. 6. It appears that in reply to the petitioner's objection to the proposed transfer, respondent no.1 addressed a letter dated 27th October, 2017 to the petitioner informing the petitioner that his objections were conveyed by respondent no.1 to Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (CCIT) i.e. CCIT- Pune, who inturn conveyed the objections to CCIT, (Central, Mumbai) who then forwarded the same to the Additional DIT (Investigation), Mumbai. Petitioner was conveyed that DDIT (Investigation) overruled all his ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pport of the petition made the following submissions : (i) that the impugned order is bad in law since the requirements of Section 127(2) of the Act have not been complied with inasmuch as the agreement envisaged by Section 127(2) between CCIT (Pune) and the CCIT, Central Mumbai has not been arrived at. (ii) that the condition precedent for show-cause notice, as well as, the order under Section 127(2) of the Act is that, there has to be an agreement between CCIT (Pune) and the CCIT-Mumbai and without there being an express agreement, the principal conditions for invoking the provisions of Section 127(2) cannot be treated as having been met. (iii) that neither show cause notice nor impugned transfer order, even remotely suggest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the D.Y. Patil group, search action was conducted on 27.07.2016 and the Centralization Committee in the meeting held on 16.11.2016 decided to centralize the cases of this group with the DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-7(1), Central Range- 7, Mumbai in the charge of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai for the purpose of coordinated investigation. As already mentioned earlier, the process of centralization of the case of petitioner was started after receipt of written communication vide letter dtd. 19.12.2016 from the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central)-1, Mumbai to CCIT, Pune (copy enclosed as per Annexure-2). Thereafter, CCIT, Pune has issued letter dtd. 25.01.2017 to Pr.CIT-1 2, Kolhapur seeking consent for centralizati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd PcsIT. All the communication were received through proper channel, which also indicates that there was proper co-ordination and communication between various authorities of the Income-Tax Department on this issue. Therefore, the above grounds raised by the petitioner are factually incorrect and not acceptable. (emphasis supplied) 14. It is discernable from the reply that; (a) Centralised Committee in its meeting held on 16th November, 2016 decided to centralise the 13 cases including that of the petitioner herein for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation. (b) Centralisation Committee is not the authority, envisaged under Section 127(2) of the Income-Tax Act. (c) vide letter dated 19th December, 2016 the CCIT (C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
