TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BER KHANPAN UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED M/S. GREEN VALLEY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, M/S. BLOOMING DALE RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SHRIMATI VIJAYA DEVI MALU, KUBER HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED, SHRI CHHATRA SINGH BAID, KUBER PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SHRI VINAY MALOO, KAMNA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SHRI BHIKAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, KAMNA FRAGNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, SHRI SUMIT MALOO, MS. SHEWETA BAID, KUBER SECURITIES, S. M. PRODUCTS SHRI BAJRANG LAL MALOO, SON OF LATE SOHAN LAL MALOO, SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR SHARMA, M/S. CHHATRA SINGH BAID & SONS (HUF), SHRI CHHATRA SINGH BAID, PRIYA FASHION WEAR PRIVATE LIMITED, VIKASH KUMAR MALU & SONS (HUF), JUDGMENT ( Hrishikesh Roy, J. ) Heard Mr. U.K. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respondents are represented by Mr. S. Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. 2. In these cases, the income tax authorities have invoked Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act to transfer the cases of the assessees from Guwahati to the jurisdictional income tax officer at New Delhi. 3. For the first group of litigants [WP(C) Nos.5828/2015, WP(C) Nos.5845/2015, WP(C) Nos.5870/2015, WP(C) Nos.5879/2015, WP(C) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o furnish your comments on or before 30/07/2015. In case your comments are not received by 30/07/2015, it shall be presumed that you have no objection to transfer your case to the office of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-28, New Delhi. Yours faithfully, Income Tax Officer (Tech.) For, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-I, Guwahati" 5. As can be seen from the above notice(s), the transfer was proposed for centralization of the cases of different assessees, under one Officer of the Income Tax Department and that is why the assessees were asked to respond as to why, their respective cases should not be transferred out of the jurisdiction of the income tax officer at Guwahati to the officer at New Delhi. 6. In their respective replies, the assessees contended that the reasons/grounds are not disclosed for transferring the cases to New Delhi in the show cause notice and accordingly request was made to convey the reason for the proposed action and further not to pass any order on the proposed transfer, without communication of the reasons. 7. Thereafter, without specifying any reason for the proposed action, the Principal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcising jurisdiction over the concerned assessee and in the instant case, the competent Officer at Guwahati could have easily coordinated/centralized the assessment work, for all these litigants. 10.1. On the other hand Mr. S. Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that most of the assessees involved in the present cases are residents of Delhi and that is one of the reason for transferring these cases to the jurisdiction of the Delhi based Income Tax Officer. 10.2. The learned lawyer for the Revenue also submits that reasons for the impugned action are clearly discernible from the show case notice and also the final order passed under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act and therefore Mr. Sarma argues that there has been no denial of adequate opportunity to the petitioners. 11. The requirement of Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act was considered in Ajantha Industries Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, reported in (1976) 102 ITR 0281 and here the question that was decided is whether failure to record the reason in the order which was communicated to the assessees, violates the principle of Natural Justice. The issue was answered by the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notice. The contemplated hearing in such matter to the assessee must be effective and not a mere formality. Bare omnibus statement that the transfer is intended for the purpose of centralization of cases will not be enough since all the cases can be centralized under an officer based in Guwahati and transfer of jurisdiction to an officer at New Delhi would not be justified for the reason disclosed, more so, in view of Sub-section (9A) of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. 15. That apart, the order passed under Section 127 of the I.T. Act is a quasi judicial order and it must be established that such order was passed upon due application of mind to the relevant facts having a bearing on the issue for invoking the powers under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act. Here we find that the competent authority acted at the request of the CCIT (Central), New Delhi and noticing the reversal of the stand in the WP(C) No.6675/2015, we can reasonably infer that proper application of mind by the competent authority at Guwahati is lacking in the instant cases and because of this, the abdication of responsibility is discernible in these cases. 16. It further appears from the show cause no....