TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred from Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai-8 to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle (6), New Delhi for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation and assessment of the petitioner. 2. By an order dated 5 January 2012 the Commissioner of Income Tax-8 Mumbai had transferred the petitioners' case from Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-8(1) Mumbai to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi (Central-6), New Delhi in exercise of the powers under section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961("the Act"). The above order was passed on the ground that the case belonging to the Sahara Group are centralized with DCIT (Central-6), New Delhi and also the fact that the assessee had large scale financial transaction/substantial loan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i did not accept the petitioners' objections and has transferred the petitioners case from Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-8(1), Mumbai to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, New Delhi. The impugned order transfers the case of the petitioners as above for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation and assessment after giving the following findings:- "I find that the assessee has not refuted the fact that it is an entity of the Sahara Group and that it has substantial financial transaction with the various group entitles." 6. Mr. J.D. Mistry, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has urged the following contentions challenging the impugned order. (a) The impugned order has been passed on the ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved from Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi which in turn makes reference to a communication dated 26 August 2011 received from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax approving centralization of the petitioners' case. The aforesaid correspondence not having been furnished to the petitioners makes the impugned order bad in law as being in breach of natural justice; and (e) The impugned order dated 7 March 2013 is unsustainable in law as there is no evidence on record to show that the transfer of the petitioner's case from Mumbai to Delhi was consequent to an agreement between the Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai and Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-6) New Delhi. 7. On the other hand Mr. Pinto learned Counsel for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stry that the impugned order goes much beyond the Show Cause Notice is concerned, we find that in the show cause notice (order dated 5 January 2012) it is mentioned as under:- "It is seen that all the cases belonging to the Sahara Group are centralized with DCIT Central Circle-6, New Delhi. It is also a fact that the assessee has substantial loan/financial transactions with the other group entities. Further the assessee is learnt to have stakes in IPL Cricket Team ( Pune Warriors) owned by the group company M/s. Sahara Adventure Sports P. Ltd., which also has been centralized with DCIT Central Circle-6 New Delhi." while the impugned order transfers it on the following grounds:- "I find that the assessee has not refuted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies that it has substantial financial transactions with various group entities of the Sahara Group. In fact the petitioner had in its replies not refuted the fact that it has substantial financial transactions with various entities in the Sahara Group of Companies. Thus, when there is no objection to the ground for proposed transfer, no occasion to deal with the same can arise. Moreover, as pointed out above, the order of transfer under Section 127 of the Act has to indicate that there is due application of mind and the transfer is not malafide and/or the impugned order is not perverse. 11. As regards the third contention of Mr. Mistry, that the petitioners is regularly assessed to tax in Mumbai. The impugned order gives no reasons as to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... personal hearing by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing whereat objections were raised and considered before passing the impugned order. 13. We may also refer to recent judgment of this Court dated 26 September 2013 in Writ Petition No.408 of 2013 dismissing the writ petition challenging the similar transfer order under section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Sahara Hospitality Limited and another v. Commissioner of Income Tax­8 which is also a part of the Sahara Group. 14. The last objection raised by Mr. Mistry is that there is no evidence of any agreement bet....