2025 (11) TMI 749 - HC - Income Tax

Order under Section 127 quashed as transfer of assessment arbitrary, unjustified and unreasonable after completed group assessment

HC allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 issued under Section 127 of the Act, declaring it invalid. HC found the ... Validity of notice issued u/s 127 - transfer petitioner’s case from Udaipur to Delhi - HELD THAT:- We do not approve the conduct of the Revenue for being rigid and adamant to transfer the case of petitioner from Udaipur to Delhi despite passing of the previous order by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court [2023 (1) TMI 223 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] which was not challenged further but rather accepted by the Revenue. The Revenue must be more concerned with examining and deciding the issue strictly as per law instead of making the assessee a shuttlecock. When the faceless system has been put in place by the Revenue itself which has provided more transparency in the taxation matters then act of Revenue of transferring the case by impugned order dated 19.10.2022 is neither reasonable nor justifiable but rather arbitrary. The proceedings initiated by respondent against petitioner are pending for more than 6 years because of respondent’s unreasonable and unjustified act of ordering transfer the case of the petitioner from Udaipur to Delhi. From impugned order it appears that respondent decided to transfer petitioner’s case from Udaipur to Delhi by exercising powers under Section 127(1) of the Act for uniformity in assessment of persons involved following the search that department had taken under Section 132(1) of the Act on 27.11.2017 on the Brindavan group. Admittedly, as stated in reply, the assessment of Brindavan group got completed sometime in December 2019, therefore, as the assessment itself has been passed in the case of Brindavan group, we see no reason why the petitioner’s case should be transferred to Delhi. Present Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 issued under Section 127 of the Act of 1961 is declared invalid and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a transfer of income-tax assessment proceedings under Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is permissible without first affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing, except where reasons to the contrary are recorded in writing. 2. Whether, after a court quashes a transfer order under Section 127(1) for failure to provide hearing, the Revenue may issue a fresh transfer order on substantially the same grounds and facts without any material change in circumstances. 3. Whether transfer of a pending assessment to achieve uniformity in assessment of persons connected with a search is justifiable where the connected group's assessments have already been completed. 4. Scope of judicial relief upon quashing of transfer orders under Section 127(1): permissible resumption stage, and whether the Revenue may re-exercise powers including initiation under other provisions (e.g., Section 153C) subsequently. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Requirement of hearing before transfer under Section 127(1) Legal framework: Section 127(1) confers power on the competent authority to transfer assessment proceedings from one assessing authority to another. Principles of natural justice and adversarial character of assessment/re-assessment proceedings underpin the process. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on earlier decisions holding that opportunity of hearing must ordinarily be provided before transfer; prior authority recognized exceptions only where reasons for non-hearing are recorded in writing. Earlier bench decisions and Supreme Court authority were followed to reinforce this principle. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court construed Section 127(1) in light of natural justice: transfer affects the assessee's right to engage counsel and defend; therefore providing hearing is essential and can be dispensed with only upon stated, recorded reasons demonstrating impossibility. The faceless assessment scheme does not abrogate the assessee's right to be heard or the requirement to follow natural justice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - transfer under Section 127(1) requires an opportunity of hearing absent recorded reasons for not doing so. Obiter - comments on faceless assessment affording transparency but not eliminating right to engage counsel. Conclusion: The Court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of affording a hearing before transfer except in documented exceptional circumstances; failure to do so renders the transfer order vulnerable to quashing. Issue 2 - Validity of fresh transfer on same grounds after prior quashing Legal framework: Administrative action taken after judicial cancellation of an order must be rooted in materially different facts or lawful procedure (including compliance with directions given by court) to avoid re-litigation of the same grievance. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on its earlier coordinate bench order which quashed a transfer for absence of hearing and permitted re-transfer only after giving hearing. Orders of other High Courts addressing similar factual matrices were noted and applied by analogy. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the fresh transfer order and found no material change in factual matrix other than formal approvals. The Revenue had already been permitted to transfer after providing hearing; the fresh order, being founded on substantially the same grounds without material justification, amounted to re-running the same invalid action. The Court criticized the Revenue's rigidity and described such repetition as arbitrary and unjustifiable, particularly where proceedings had been prolonged and faceless procedures exist to ensure fairness. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a fresh transfer, made on substantially the same grounds after a prior order was quashed for failure to provide hearing, is invalid unless there is a material change in circumstances or proper compliance with hearing requirements. Obiter - reproach of Revenue's conduct and commentary on the faceless system enhancing transparency. Conclusion: The fresh transfer made on the same grounds was held invalid and quashed; administrative re-execution of a previously quashed transfer without material change or lawful compliance with mandated procedure is impermissible. Issue 3 - Legitimacy of transfer for uniformity when related group's assessments are complete Legal framework: Section 127(1) may be exercised for uniformity in assessment of connected persons following a search, but the exercise must be reasonable, justified on merits and consistent with statutory purpose. Precedent treatment: The Court distinguished earlier case law relied upon by Revenue where transfers occurred intracity or where factual circumstances (such as pendency of orders) differed, and where courts found no justiciable grievance. Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order justified transfer on grounds of uniformity relating to assessments arising from a search of a connected group. The Court observed that the assessments of the connected group had been completed months earlier; given that completion, the stated justification for transfer (uniformity) no longer carried persuasive force. The transfer, therefore, lacked substantive rationale and was neither reasonable nor justifiable in the circumstances. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - transfer purportedly for uniformity is unjustified where the uniformity rationale no longer applies (e.g., where related assessments have been completed). Obiter - note that formal approvals alone do not alter the material factual matrix. Conclusion: Transfer for uniformity was not sustainable where the related group's assessments had already concluded; absence of a continuing, material rationale renders such transfer arbitrary. Issue 4 - Relief ordered and scope for Revenue's future action Legal framework: When a court quashes administrative action, it may direct the stage from which proceedings shall resume and preserve statutory rights allowing the administration to act within law subsequently. Precedent treatment: The Court followed its prior practice of permitting the Revenue to resume proceedings from the stage prior to transfer and preserved legal rights of Revenue to invoke other statutory provisions subject to fair procedure. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court directed that proceedings resume from the stage existing prior to the impugned transfer orders and declared invalid any adverse orders passed during pendency. Simultaneously, it preserved the Revenue's rights to take steps under applicable provisions (including Section 153C) but clarified that such liberty does not amount to judicial approval of any particular future action and that the assessee would be entitled to defend such action in law. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - quashing of transfer restores the matter to the pre-transfer stage and invalidates adverse interim orders; Revenue retains the statutory right to proceed lawfully thereafter. Obiter - cautionary remark that permission to act under other provisions should not be construed as endorsement. Conclusion: The Court quashed the transfer orders, restored proceedings to the pre-transfer stage, declared interim adverse orders illegal, and left open lawful avenues for Revenue to proceed thereafter while preserving the assessee's right to defend.