TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act) transferring his case from Kolhapur to Mumbai, on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. Thus liable to be quashed by issuing appropriate writ, order and/or directions. 2. Heard Mr. Mistri, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Singh for the respondents. 3. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 4. It is the petitioner's case that the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-II-respondent no.1 herein who has a jurisdiction over the petitioner's case issued a notice dated 14th February, 2017 and proposed to transfer the petitioner's case from Kolhapur to Mumbai. The said notice refers to a meeting of Centralised Committee held on 16th November, 2016 wherein it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., to be not acceptable and proposed to be rejected. He was also informed that since his case is connected to the D.Y. Patil Group, for coordinated investigation/verification, necessary order under Section 127 of the Act, was proposed to be passed and as such he was called upon to attend the office and submit his objections, if any, on 6th November, 2017. 7. The petitioner vide letter dated 6th November, 2017 raised further objections to the proposed transfer. However, without considering any of the objections, respondent no.1 had passed the impugned order dated 2nd January, 2018 under Section 127(2) of the said Act and transferred the petitioner's case from Kolhapur I.T.O. Ward 2(2) Kolhapur to DCIT/ACIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en CCIT, Mumbai and CCIT, Pune and/or Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur. (iv) That show-cause notice dated 14.2.2017 as well as impugned order dated 2.1.2018, clearly indicate transfer proceedings were initiated not at the instance/request of officers, in terms of Section 127(2) of the Act, but, in pursuance to decision taken on 27th July, 2016 in meeting of the Centralised Committee. 11. He would therefore submit that, the invocation of the provisions of Section 127(2) of the Act itself is illegal, void and in absence of any positive agreement being arrived at between the authorities of equal rank, the impugned order is bad in law. 12. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mistri has relied on the judgment of the Suprem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per Annexure-3). Thereafter PCIT-1 & 2, Kolhapur has issued letters to Shri. Dilip Tanaji Kashid seeking consent/objection from the assessee to transfer his case from ITO, Ward 2(2), Kolhapur to ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai. Since the assessee has objected for transfer, the objections were communicated to CCIT, Pune who in turn communicated the same to CCIT, Central-1, Mumbai who again forwarded the same to Addl.DIT (Inv), Mumbai. The concerned DDIT (Inv), Mumbai has explained detailed reasons for rejection of assessee's contentions/objections (received in this office through proper channel) which has been again communicated to the assessee. After obtaining his further explanation, order u/s. 127 has been passed by the un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) in accordance with the decision of the Centralisation Committee. (d) that CCIT, Pune forwarded letter dated 19th December, 2016 to respondent no.1 alongwith letter dated 25th January, 2017. (e) Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, Kolhapur is subordinate to CCIT, Pune. (f) CCIT (Central), Mumbai and Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, are not officers of equal rank. (g) that there is nothing on record to even suggest CCIT, Pune has consented or agreed for transfer. (h) that "absence of dissenting note" is construed or sought to be construed as an Agreement. 15. Thus, the counter-affidavit on behalf of Revenue does not disclose that there was any such agreement between the authorities of equal rank. . In the c....