9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed notice dated 21st December 2024 at Ann. K and impugned order dated 2nd January 2025 at Ann-L and other consequential notices and order in pursuance thereof; or B. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prohibiting Respondents from taking any steps or coercive action in furtherance of the impugned order dated 2nd January 2025 and other consequential notices and order in pursuance thereof; C. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent No. 1 to provide the Petitioner with the information and documents relied by the Respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned Order dated 2nd January 2025; at Ann-L D. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause "B". E. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause "C"; F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has preferred the present petition. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Sanket Bora for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice dated 21.12.2024 issued by the respondent as well as order dated 02.01.2025 are contrary to the provisions of section 127 (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short "the Act") because both the impugned notice and order are in form of corrigendum to the earlier order dated 29.11.2023 passed under section 127 of the Act and hence, the respondent could not have improved upon the facts as well as the reasons which are not available in the order 29.11.2023. 12. It was further submitted that the corrigendum means correction of printed matter and therefore, the impugned notice relying upon further material is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of such submission, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Polyplex Corp. N Ltd v. Union of India reported in (2014) 51 taxmann.com 262 (Allahabad). 13. It was submitted that the impugned order dated 02.01.2025 being a corrigendum order also goes beyond what is contained in the show cause notice dated 21.12.2024 as reliance was placed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t avail the said opportunity to make further submissions. On perusal of the notice dated 21.12.2024 it is discerned that the details of the transactions entered into by the petitioner with M/s. G.K. Associates for the Financial year 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 are referred to so as to centralise the case of the petitioner with other group cases with DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Pune for coordinated investigation in public interest. 18. In view of above facts, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that no document/information is provided to the petitioner for exercising the power to transfer the case under section 127 of the Act is contrary to the record as order dated 29.11.2023 did not contain any reference to the objections raised by the petitioner and hence, the respondent no. 1 has passed the impugned corrigendum order dated 02.01.2025 considering the material available with him regarding the transactions of the petitioner with M/s. G.K. Associates as well as the reply dated 18.11.2023 filed by the petitioner. 19. In such circumstances, reference made to the information received from PCIT Central Pune as well as report of DCIT (Investigation), Pune dated 3.12.202 referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipal Chief Commissioners or] Chief Commissioners or [Principal Commissioners or] Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where the [Principal Directors General or] Directors General or [Principal Chief Commissioners or] Chief Commissioners or [Principal Commissioners or] Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be transferred from Vadodara to Pune. 24. Respondent no. 1 has recorded the following reasons for transfer of case in the impugned corrigendum order dated 2.01.2025: "4.2 The assessee has not submitted any response to the above notice till date. Hence this order is being passed based on objections raised in a letter submitted on 01/12/2023. In this letter it is contended that the assessee is not a beneficiary in the transactions pertaining to the searched groups. It is contended that there is no reference of any incriminating documents found against the assessee in the search and seizure action conducted in the case of GK Associates and SSD Group. Further the assessee has submitted that no inquiry has been carried out in his case in the post-search proceedings by the Investigation Wing. Hence this shows that there is no incriminating document or paper seized with G K Associates and SSD group that warrants centralization of the assessee's case with the other Group cases. 4.2.1 The contentions raised are examined carefully and it is found that as per information received from PCIT(Central), Pune vide letter dated 09/12/2024, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to him have been found is not found to be correct. The above information provided by DDIT(Inv.), Pune vide letter dated 03.12.2024 indicates Vishal Talreja's close business association and unaccounted cash transactions with M/s. G.K. Associates that require a co-ordinated investigation to protect the interest of revenue for public purposes. It is also noted that the assessee has not furnished any reply to the above material disclosed to him vide letter dated 21.12.2024. 4.2.3 The assessee has stated that there is no enquiry conducted with him in the post-search proceedings hence there is no material evidence against him. As per information available with this office, a summons u/s 131(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 10/07/2023 was issued to Vishal Talreja vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/INV/S/131/2023-24/ 1054262802 (1) by Investigation Wing Pune and he has replied to the said summons on 24.07.2023. Thus, the assessee's contention that no post search enquiries were conducted does not appear to be correct. 4.3 The assessee has relied on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sagarmal Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited vs CBDT, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the AO, location inconvenience etc. raised by the assessee do not hold any water." Therefore, relying on the above decision, the objection raised by the assessee is not found to be tenable. Further the case of the assessee requires centralization for coordinated investigation in interest of revenue and for public purpose, as per the guidelines issued by the CBDT. In this regard, reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Shree Ram Vessel Scrap P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income tax, reported in (2013) 355 ITR 255 (Guj) wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that centralization for effective and coordinated investigation in public interest can be a good ground for transfer of a case. 4.5 In view of the above, it is clear that Shri Vishal Darshanlal Talreja has significant suspicious cash transactions with M/s. G.K. Associates. As M/s. G.K. Associates Group is assessed to tax with DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Pune, for the coordinated investigation and assessment in interest of revenue and for public purposes, the case of Shri Vishal Talreja being a related person is also required to be centralized with DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Pune." 25. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f power under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of the Act comes with certain procedural requirements namely, of granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter wherever it is possible to do so, of recording of reasons for passing such order and as provided by the Supreme Court in Ajanta Industries (supra) communicating such reasons also to the assessee. Subject to fulfillment of such procedural requirements, the authority under Section 127 enjoys considerable discretion while exercising the power contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) thereof. Such discretion of course has to be exercised for achieving the public purpose and not for any arbitrary or irrelevant consideration. On the other hand, it can also be seen that transfer of a pending case from one Assessing Officer to another outside of a city, locality or place is likely to cause considerable inconvenience to an assessee. Therefore, even though an assessee may not have a vested right to insist that his assessment be completed only at one place or by a particular Assessing Officer, nevertheless, the reasons for transfer must be weighty enough to offset against such personal inconvenience of an asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are neither perverse or arbitrary or mala fide this Court would not interfere with the reasonable exercise of discretion." 29 The Delhi High Court, in the case of Vishal Kumar vs. Commissioner of Income, reported in (2014) 44 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi), held as under : "10. The assessee also has the opportunity to present his case and be subject to a regular assessment, in front of the Assessing Officer to whom jurisdiction has been transferred. No prejudice is caused by the mere fact of a Section 127 order, such that detailed reasons and specific grounds are required to be provided, as the petitioner today argues. Equally, the show-cause notice dated 9.10.2013 granted the petitioner in this case an opportunity of being heard. No oral representation was made by the petitioner on that date, nor was any request for another date made to the Commissioner. Written objections, however, were preferred, which were considered and disposed off by the impugned notice in this case. The argument, thus, that no chance to effectively represent the case was provided has no merit." 30 In Pannalal Binraj vs. Union of India, reported in (1957) 31 ITR 565, the Supreme Court observed while upholdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
