TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring was given to the petitioner despite specific demand in this regard; the objections of the petitioner in response to the notice were not at all considered by the Principal Commissioner; and the report which forms basis of the order was not supplied to him. Shri Ghildyal, defends the order by alleging that the objections of the petitioners were not found satisfactory and relying upon the report in this regard the case of the petitioner was transferred. The petitioner has participated in the assessment proceedings whereupon assessment order has also been passed. Therefore, the challenge to the transfer order in such a situation is meaningless. It appears from the record that a search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act were carried out on 11th November, 2014 in the various premises of Sunworld Group of Companies including that of the petitioner, who happens to be one of the directors of the companies. A show cause notice dated 2nd May, 2016 was issued to the petitioner as to why the case of the petitioner may not be transferred from New Delhi to NOIDA before Deputy /Assistant C.I.T., Central Circle, Noida. In response to the said notice, the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Commissioner or Commissioner- (a) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioner to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorized in this behalf." Section 127 of the Act l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer(s) to another Assessing Officer(s) but not subordinate to the same Authority with the agreement between the two competent authorities and as such, the competent authority from whose jurisdiction, the case is to be transferred is required to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee, if it is possible to do so and has to record reasons for transferring the case before passing any order of transfer. In other words to put it simply, the Principal Commissioner of New Delhi, from whose jurisdiction, the case was proposed to be transferred could not have ordered the transfer of the case without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee, if it was so possible and without recording reasons for such transfer. Therefore, until and unless, the above two conditions, which are part and parcel of the principles of natural justice, were fulfilled, the order of transfer would not be legally sustainable. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the Principal Commissioner has nowhere stated that it was not possible to accord opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or that objections raised by him by means of reply dated 16th May, 2016 are not ten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hy case of the petitioner or any other case of the aforesaid group of companies requires to be transferred outside New Delhi to NOIDA. The aforesaid two reasons are not relevant for the transfer of the petitioner's case from one Assessing Officer(s) to one or more Assessing Officer(s) either subordinate to the same competent authority or outside his jurisdiction. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, has not recorded his independent reasoning or finding about the objections raised by the petitioner. He does not even record that he is satisfied with the report as submitted to him and that he agrees with the same. In addition to the above it is also not disputed that the report as relied upon by the petitioner forming the basis of the order was never supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner through his objections have categorically demanded personal hearing in the matter but the same was never refused and was not even given. At the same time, no reason exists for denying the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or to indicate that it was not possible to give such an opportunity to him. In view of the above, the order of transfer passed on behalf of th....