AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice dated 18th April 2017 to the petitioner taking recourse to subsection 2 of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short `the Income Tax Act'). The petitioner assessee was put to notice that there is a proposal to transfer the case of the petitioner to DCIT, Central Circle­2(1), Chennai for proper co­ordinated investigation. There was a reply filed to the said show cause notice by the petitioner on 8th May 2017. The impugned order was made by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai under sub­section 2 of section 127 of the Income Tax Act by which the case of the petitioner was transferred to DCIT, Central Circle­2(1) at Chennai. It is this order which is subjected to a challenge in this writ petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst paragraph of notice dated 18th April 2017. He submitted that the request came from the investigation office at Chennai on 1st December 2015 to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai for transfer of the case to Chennai. He submitted that this assertion in the notice shows that there is no lack of agreement between the two Principal Commissioners. While dealing with this aspect, he relied upon the decision of High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1997] 95 Taxman 132 (PAT.). He placed reliance on the paragraph 12 of the said decision. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited out attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eral 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 impossible 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 Commissioners 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 notific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lated by clause (a) of sub­section 2 of section 127. In the present case, as far as the existence of the agreement is concerned, the submission is crystalised in clause (o) of affidavit in reply. Clause (o) reads thus: "(o)With reference to paragraph (15) O,P and Q of the writ petition the agreement of the concerned jurisdictional Pr CITs is by necessary implication. Proceedings u/s 127 (2) were initiated in this jurisdiction upon receipt of reference from the office of the DGIT (Inv.), Chennai seeking notification of the case. This necessarily implies agreement between the respective Pr.CITs. It is only in the case of lack of agreement that a separate procedure is provided in the Act. Further as the petitioner received notice u/s.143(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pex Court has categorically held that the absence of disagreement will not be tantamount to an agreement as visualized under section 127(2)(a) which contemplates positive state of mind of the two jurisdictional Principal Commissioners of Income Tax. The agreement contemplated by clause (a) of sub­section (2) of section 127 may not be a drawn up agreement. What is necessary is that there has to be an agreement which will involve positive state of mind of the two jurisdictional Principal Commissioners. Both of them must consent to the transfer after application of mind. 9. In the present case, it is not even the case made out in the show cause notice that the agreement as contemplated by the first part of clause (a) of sub­section (2....