Court issues Writ to quash jurisdiction transfer & directs cooperation with Bengaluru Revenue office

The court allowed the petition and issued a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order transferring the petitioner's case jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act from Mumbai to Bengaluru. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with authorities in Bengaluru, provide documents, and appear for statements when necessary, emphasizing cooperation with the Bengaluru Revenue office. The judgment clarified the transfer of jurisdiction and the petitioner's obligations in the investigative process.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order transferring case jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a petition challenging an order transferring the petitioner's case to a different jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, a partner in a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling gold ornaments, had his case transferred to the charge of DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru by the CCIT, Mumbai-27. The basis for the transfer was an incident where employees of the petitioner's firm were intercepted in Bengaluru with gold jewellery belonging to the firm. Investigations were initiated, and a case was pending before the Addl.CMM, Bengaluru involving the DDIT (Investigation) Unit-3(3), Bengaluru as a respondent.

The court analyzed the provisions of Section 127(2) of the Act, emphasizing that the reasons for transferring a case must be reasonable and subject to judicial scrutiny. The court noted that while the petitioner was given a show-cause notice and a hearing before the order was passed, the impugned order lacked adequate reasoning for transferring the case to Bengaluru. The court highlighted that the mere pendency of a case before the Addl.CMM in Bengaluru could not serve as a valid reason for transferring the petitioner's assessment from Mumbai to Bengaluru.

Ultimately, the court allowed the petition and issued a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the order transferring the petitioner's case to Bengaluru. However, the petitioner was directed to cooperate fully with the authorities in Bengaluru, provide necessary documents, and appear for statements when required, emphasizing cooperation with the Bengaluru office of the Revenue. The judgment concluded with the disposal of the petition, providing clarity on the transfer of jurisdiction and the petitioner's obligations in the investigative process.

---