Tax case transfer from Coimbatore to Kolkata upheld under Section 127 where seizure occurred

HC dismissed the writ petition challenging transfer of case from Coimbatore to Central Circle, Kolkata under Section 127. Court held that respondents had sufficient material for transfer as Kolkata Circle conducted search and seizure operations on petitioner's business premises, seizing incriminating materials related to lottery business within their jurisdiction. Despite petitioner's objections citing age, litigation costs, and registered office location in Coimbatore, Court found transfer appropriate since assessment should occur where incriminating evidence was seized, regardless of registered office location. Respondents provided adequate opportunity for reply and personal hearing before issuing transfer notification.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondents have sufficient material for transfer of the case from Coimbatore to Central Circle, KolkataRs.
2. Whether the respondents have provided an opportunity for filing a reply and for personal hearingRs.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Sufficient Material for Transfer
The petitioner, with a registered office in Coimbatore, contested the transfer of their case to the Central Circle, Kolkata. The respondents conducted a search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 12.10.2023, uncovering incriminating documents linked to the petitioner. These documents necessitated a coordinated investigation, prompting the proposal to centralize the case in Kolkata for effective assessment. The show cause notice detailed the necessity of analyzing the documents together, which could only be done at one location. The petitioner argued against the transfer, citing logistical and financial difficulties, and suggested centralizing the case in Coimbatore instead. However, the court found that the materials seized in Kolkata were directly linked to the petitioner's business activities there, justifying the transfer to Kolkata.

Issue 2: Opportunity for Filing a Reply and Personal Hearing
The petitioner claimed that their reply to the show cause notice was not considered and that they were denied a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice as per Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act. The respondents issued a show cause notice on 09.04.2024, to which the petitioner replied on 13.04.2024, expressing their objections. The court noted that the respondents had provided sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to file their reply. The petitioner's reply highlighted personal difficulties and the impracticality of transferring the case to Kolkata. Despite these objections, the court found that the respondents had considered the reply and decided to transfer the case based on the incriminating materials found in Kolkata.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the respondents had sufficient material for the transfer and had provided the petitioner with an opportunity to file a reply. The transfer was deemed appropriate given the location of the incriminating materials and the necessity for a coordinated investigation. The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that no prejudice would be caused by the transfer, and found no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The case laws cited by the petitioner were not applicable to the present case. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---