TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcise of powers under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of transfer of jurisdiction of the petitioner from ITO, Ward-29(1), Delhi to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Faridabad. 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, (i) that the petitioner, since its inception and since the Assessment Year 2014-15 has been assessed at Delhi; (ii) that in the show cause notice issued prior to exercising the power, no reason whatsoever was given; and, (iii) that even in the impugned order, no reason whatsoever has been given. 5. Reliance is placed on Pannalal Binjraj Vs. The Union of India (1957) 31 ITR 565 (SC), Power Controls Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VII (2000) 241 ITR 807 (Delhi), Ajantha In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner from ITO Ward 29(1), New Delhi to ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad and the petitioner asked to submit its objections, if any and to participate in the hearing granted. Undoubtedly, the said notice did not set out any reasons for transfer. However, a perusal of Section 127(2)(a) shows the same to be requiring only giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, that too "wherever it is possible to do so" and only requires reasons to be recorded, if directing transfer. Though there is no specific requirement for the notice to set out the reasons but the principles of natural justice require reasons to be stated, to enable the assessee to make effective use of the opportunity granted of hearing. The prese....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proposal of transfer was mooted for centralization of the case of the petitioner at Delhi and of Smt. Veena Jain, partner of the petitioner at Faridabad; (b) that though Smt. Veena Jain had submitted her no objection to the proposal for centralization but the petitioner had objected; and, (c) reproduces verbatim the objections taken by the petitioner to the transfer of jurisdiction. The impugned order thereafter proceeds to record the response of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram to the objections of the petitioner, to the effect that (i) the petitioner is a key concern of the Chairman of the Group i.e. Devender Kumar Gupta; (ii) during the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating documents/materials found and se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for interference is made out. In this context, reference may be made to Pannalal Binjraj supra cited by the counsel for the petitioner himself. The said judgment dismissed the challenge to the validity of the transfer order and to Section 5(7A) of the then Income Tax Act (and equivalent of Section 127 of the 1961 Act), reasoning that, (a) though convenience of the assessee is the main consideration in determining the place of assessment but exigencies of tax collection also have to be considered and the primary object of the Act, viz. the assessment of income tax, has got to be achieved; (b) in order to assess the tax payable by an assessee more conveniently and efficiently, it may be necessary to have the same assessed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act and ends to be achieved; and, (g) however the principles of natural justice have to be complied before exercising the power. 10. All the other judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner, are on the aspect of opportunity of hearing and turn on their own facts but we have hereinabove already held that in the fact of the present case there was sufficient compliance with the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. 11. Rather, the facts of Vishal Kumar supra referred to by the counsel for the respondent are more akin to the facts of the present case. The notice preceding the order of transfer in that case, also from Delhi to Faridabad, was in the same format as the notices in the present case and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot relevant for the assessee to so disclose. We are unable to agree. A partnership firm, as the petitioner is, as distinct from a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is not a legal entity and is merely a compendium name for its partners. It is also not disputed that Devender Kumar Gupta, who has filed this petition on behalf of the petitioner, is also a resident of Faridabad. It is thus obvious that this petition is mala fide and to take an unfair advantage in the matter of assessment of income tax by not permitting assessment of all related persons by one Officer. 13. Though the counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the change of jurisdiction is not limited from Delhi to Faridabad but would also change the j....