TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner is being assessed to income tax in Mumbai since Assessment Year 1996-97. (b) By a communication dated 6th January, 2015, the Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai issued a showcause notice to the petitioner proposing to transfer the petitioner's case under Section 127(2) of the Act from Mumbai to ACIT, Central, Circle, Aurangabad. The basis for the proposed transfer is centralization of Jhaveri Group for purposes of coordinated investigation along with other cases and Administrative convenience. (c) On 27th January, 2015, the petitioner responded to the showcause notice inter alia pointing out that its principal place of business is in Mumbai with even its Directors residing and being assessed to tax at Mumbai. Further, it does not belong to Jhaveri Group of Companies. Therefore, the petitioner's case need not be transferred from Mumbai to Aurangabad. In any event, to respond more appropriately the details of the evidence for transfer the petitioner's income tax proceedings from Mumbai to Aurangabad was sought. (d) In response, the Commissioner of Income Tax by letter dated 6th February, 2015 inter alia pointed out during a search on the petitioner by the Directo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of natural justice. 4. Consequent to the above, on 2nd July, 2015 a notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to transfer the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Aurangabad under Section 127(2) of the Act. The basis for the transfer was coordinated investigation along with other connected cases for Administrative convenience. No reference was made to the letter from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Nagpur which was relied upon earlier. 5. On 14th July, 2015, the petitioner filed its reply to the showcause notice inter alia pointing out as under : (a) It is in the process of constructing a building comprising of 78 flats at Vile Parle (W), Mumbai. Many of the flats are booked by during the construction stage. (b) 3 out of 78 flats in the building being constructed have been booked for sale to the persons belonging to the Jhaveri Group. These persons appear to reside in Mumbai but are assessed to tax in Aurangabad due to business being at Aurangabad. Similarly, other flats have been booked by the persons who have business interest at places other than Mumbai such as Pune etc. (c) It has no business connection with Jhaveri Group (i.e. purchasers of 3 flats f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sferring the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Aurangabad is an order in breach of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the showcause notice issued to the petitioner does not indicate the basis of the transfer save and except stating that the same is necessary for coordinated investigation and Administrative convenience. (b) The impugned order dated 21st December, 2015 is a nonspeaking order inasmuch as it does not consider and deal with the petitioner's objections as recorded in its letter dated 14th July, 2015. (c) The impugned order dated 21st December, 2015 seeks to transfer the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Aurangabad on a completely new and different ground than that recorded in its showcause notice dated 6th January, 2015 and 6th February, 2015 which led to the order dated 18th February, 2015. The order dated 18th February, 2015 was set aside by this Court as it relied upon a letter from D.I.T. (Investigation) Nagpur to transfer the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Aurangabad, without having given the petitioner's an opportunity to meet the contents of the aforesaid communication. 9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Revenue submits as under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not now placing reliance upon the letter received from D.I.T. (Investigation), Nagpur. Mr. Mohanty informs us that the letter from D.I.T. (Investigation), Nagpur was not correct and therefore, not relied upon any further. We find this attitude of the Revenue strange, as the letter from D.I.T. (Investigation), Nagpur was the basis of seeking to transfer the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Aurangabad. In all fairness, once the letter from D.I.T. (Investigation), Nagpur was incorrect, the proposal to transfer the proceedings ought to have been withdrawn. Further, this should have been pointed out to the Court when the order dated 18th June, 2015 was passed. Thus, there would have been no occasion to leave the issue open for the Revenue to pass a further order after following the principles of natural justice. The attitude of the Revenue seems to be once a transfer under Section 127(2) of the case is proposed, come what may, they would transfer the case. 12. Further, we find that the notice dated 21st December, 2015 issued consequent to the order of this Court dated 18th June 2015 is bereft of any particulars, save and except that the transfer is required for the sake of coordin....