2017 (6) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcle 3 (4), Mumbai, by exercising the power conferred under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner is a stock broking entity registered with SEBI and an assessee before the respondent Department, more particularly, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai, the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner was issued with a notice dated 23.02.2016 calling upon them to file their reply under section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act for the proposed centralisation of the group case of Radford Group with Mumbai. By their communication dated 02.03.2016, the petitioner, after expressing their stand that they have no client registered under the name and style RADFORD/RADFORD Group, has, howeve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... given No Objection for centralisation of the case with Mumbai, is not entitled to maintain this writ petition before this Court. It is her further contention that once the petitioner has given no objection for transfer, the 1st respondent is not expected to give any reason in the impugned order for transferring the case from Chennai to Mumbai. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is an assessee on the file of the 3rd respondent herein namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1),Chennai. It is not in dispute that except the notice dated 23.02.2016, no other communication was issued to the petitioner indicating the proposal of transferring the petitioner's own case from Chennai to Mumbai. Thus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioner, a thorough perusal of the reply dated 02.03.2016 would undoubtedly indicate that the petitioner has given their no objection for centralization of the Radford case with Mumbai, also by specifically stating that they have no client registered under the name and style RADFORD/RADFORD GROUP. In other words, it seems that the petitioner has given such no objection only for centralization of the Radford Group cases at Mumbai and there is no indication whatsoever in their reply expressing their willingness for transferring their own case from Chennai to Mumbai. Therefore, I am of the view that the very notice issued under section 127 (2) to the petitioner dated 23.02.2016 is bereft of material particulars indicating specifically that the....