Dismissal of Petition Challenging Transfer Order under Income Tax Act due to Delay and Conduct

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the transfer order under the Income Tax Act from Mumbai to Hyderabad. The court found the petitioner's delay in challenging the transfer order and subsequent acceptance of the transfer through conduct, such as not challenging reassessment notices, as a bar to entertaining the petition. The court refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the petitioner's conduct, leading to a refusal to examine the petitioner's grievances on merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to order transferring petitioner's case under the Income Tax Act from Mumbai to Hyderabad.
2. Legality of notices issued for reassessment for multiple assessment years.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Transfer Order
The petitioner challenged the order transferring their case from Mumbai to Hyderabad under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the transfer order was in breach of natural justice as no proper notice was given, and the order itself did not consider their objections. They contended that since their management was with Patel Engineering Limited in Mumbai, the transfer to Hyderabad based on a search at KNR Constructions was unjustified. The petitioner also claimed that the transfer order was nonspeaking and lacked reasoning. On the other hand, the revenue argued that the transfer was done after granting the petitioner a personal hearing and was in accordance with principles of natural justice.

Issue 2: Legality of Reassessment Notices
The petitioner further contested the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax at Hyderabad to issue notices for reassessment for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13. They argued that since the transfer of their case from Mumbai to Hyderabad was unlawful, the reassessment notices were without jurisdiction. The revenue, however, claimed that the delay in challenging the transfer order and seeking relief indicated the petitioner's acceptance of the transfer. The court noted the delay in filing the petition after receiving the transfer order and the subsequent issuance of reassessment notices. The court found the petitioner's conduct indicative of accepting the transfer order, leading to a refusal to entertain the petition due to laches on the petitioner's part.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, citing the petitioner's delay in challenging the transfer order and seeking relief as acceptance of the transfer. The court refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the petitioner's conduct, leading to a refusal to examine the petitioner's grievances on merits.

---