TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the premises of Bhatia Group, Tuteja Group and Dhand Group suggesting that the petitioner-company was involved in payment of unexplained money running into multiple crores to certain persons in the State of Chhattisgarh. Even if financial nexus is not palpable between the petitioner and the searched party, that by itself cannot take away the right of the Revenue to exercise its wide and sweeping powers u/s 127 of transferring a case in public interest i.e. for effective and expeditious completion of search, seizure and other operations. of premises. The citations relied upon by the petitioner relating to reasons not being cogent also are not relevant as they turn on their own facts. The impugned order herein clearly elicits cogent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for petitioner in support of his contentions that an order u/S.127(1) of the IT Act does not contain cogent and self-explanatory reasons, relies upon judgments in Ajantha Industries and Others Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others, (1976) 1 SCC 1001; Divesh Prakashchand Jain Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [2022] 134 Taxmann.com 93 (Bombay); MRL Postnet Private Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, [2019] 416 ITR 407; Hindustan M-I Swaco Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara [2016] 241 Taxman 239 (Gujrat); Sunisha Impex P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others,, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4737; M/s Zodiac Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, learned counsel for the Revenue relies upon judgments in M/S MRL POSNET PRIVATE LIMITED (REP. BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER MR. B. SUNDAR) Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER, 314 CTR 756 (MAD); SAMEER LEASING CO. LTD. Vs. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ORS., 185 ITR 129; DEV WINES SALES CORPORATION Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 431 ITR 619; SIDH GOPAL GAJANAND ORS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ORS, 73 ITR 226; ADVANTAGE STRATEGIC CONSULTING PRIVATE LTD. Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANOTHER, 400 ITR 405 (MAD); CHARAN PAL SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANR., 307 ITR 132 (P H); SHREE RAM VESSEL SCRAP (P) LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 366 CTR 274 (Guj); and ADITYA TRIPAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ysical inconvenience is obviated. At the end, the impugned order raises the cause of serving public interest of coordinated, meaningful and joint assessment in all related cases. 5. After having heard learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is not impressed with the contentions of the petitioner, for the reasons infra. (i) The relevant provision of Section 127 of the IT Act is founded upon the principle of public interest and object of facilitating an expeditious, uninterrupted, fair and impartial search and investigation by the Revenue. (ii) The discretion available to the competent authority u/S. 127 of the IT Act is wide and is circumscribed by three aspects, which are as follows: (a) Affording of reasonable opportuni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind u/S. 127 of the IT Act, it is seen that adequate and sufficient reasons (supra) which appear to be cogent are assigned while taking the impugned decision. The principles of natural justice were duly complied with by issuance of show cause notice on 04.03.2022 and taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner to the same before passing the impugned order. 8. In this view of the matter, there does not seem to be any jurisdictional lacuna in the order assailed. 9. Moreso, this Court recently on 21.02.2022 has taken a similar view in favour of the Revenue in a case challenging an order of transfer u/S. 127 of the IT Act. 10. The decisions cited by the learned senior counsel for petitioner turn on their own facts. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
