TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 605
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quently on 11.09.2012. It is contended that the impugned notice and order are contrary to law inasmuch as they do not contain any reasons. 2. The assessee was subjected to search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 pursuant to warrant issued in that regard. The warrant was not only in respect of the assessee but also in respect of other entities - most of whom were Jalandhar based. The impugned notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax proposing to centralise the assessee's case by way of transfer to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax at Jalandhar. The assessee by reply dated 03.05.2012 objected to the proposed transfer contending that the notice contain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the CIT (Central), Ludhiana vide this office letter No. CIT-XI/Centralizationl/2012-13/402 dated 30th May, 2012. In response to the letter a reply has been received from the Director of income Tax (Inv.) Ludhiana through the CIT (Central) Ludhiana vide letter NO.DIT/Inv/Ldh/2012-13/Cent/138 dated 27-07-2012 stating their that the objection of the assessee Shri. Ravneet Takhar are not maintainable. Hence, it is requested that the matter be taken up with the respective commissioner of Income Tax having present jurisdiction over his case for centralization of this case with ACIT Central Circle, Jalandhar. In the case of Shri. Yogendra Kumar Agrahari neither any reply nor any objection has been received till date. Otherwise also, section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gard it was further submitted that lack of specific reasons in the notice and the reasons furnished in the order are of such a nature as to render the transfer order illegal and unenforceable. 4. The revenue contends in its counter affidavit that besides the search and seizure operations carried out in the assessee's premises warrants were executed in respect of a large number of other entities, including M/s Prominent Players of Land Deals and M/s Punjab Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. It was decided to transfer the case and centralise it for the sake of convenience to Jalandhar. The respondents rely upon the judgment of this court in Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ITO (2007) 295 ITR 427 (Delhi) which ruled that administrative convenience ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer that there were no reasons for reopening the assessment. Such an opportunity is not available to an assessee under section 127(1) of the Act. The above decision is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. 6. In Melco India (P) Ltd.'s case (supra) the logic of Ajantha Industries's case (supra) appears to have been extended further to say that reasons should not only be forthcoming in the order under Section 127 (1) but in the notice issued to the assessee as well: 6. In Ajantha Industries v. CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281(SC), while dealing with the provisions of Section 127 of the Act, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that before making an order of transfer the Legislature has imposed the requirement of a show cause noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly alludes to the search and seizure proceedings carried out. That the assessee responded to the notice is not in dispute. Admittedly, the assessee's contention at this stage is that the reasons were vague. However, the materials on record do indicate that the assessee was subjected to search; statements of the individuals were recorded during the course of search proceedings which appear to have been the subject matter of consideration by the Income Tax authorities when they finally gave an order under Section 127 (1). The assessee's argument is that even the order under Section 127 was not furnished to it in the first instance but rather upon its asking after it was intimated about the transfer by the Jalandhar Officer. There is undoubte....