TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tting aside the order dated 29.09.2023 issued by the respondent under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). [5] Brief facts of the present case are as under: [5.1] The petitioner is a Public Limited Company, listed on Stock Exchange. A search operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Act in case of M/s Ravindu Motors Private Limited, Mrs. Meena Kirloskar, Mr. Mohib N. Khericha (who is Managing Director of the petitioner - Company), Mrs. Janki Kirloskar and Mrs. Rukmani Kirloskar on 15.12.2022. [5.2] The respondent - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad issued a notice on 11.04.2023 calling upon the petitioner as to why the PAN of the petitioner should not be centralized with ACIT/DCIT, CC 2(4), Bengaluru, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act. [5.3] The petitioner filed objections by letter dated 19.04.2023 contending that no search was carried out in the case of the petitioner - Company and petitioner has no concern whatsoever with M/s Ravindu Motors Private Limited, Mrs. Meena Kirloskar, Mrs. Janki Kirloskar and Mrs. Rukmani Kirloskar. It was contended that Mr. Mohib Kericha who happens to be one of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oq Ali Khan (supra) has considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-11 and 12, which read as under: "11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajantha Industries v CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281 has held that while making an order of transfer under Section 127 of the Act requirements of recording reasons is mandatory and non communication of same to the assessee would not save such order by showing that reasons existed in file although not communicated to assessee. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment to the following effect: "The reasons for recording of reasons in the order and making these reasons known to the assessee is to enable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution or even this court under article 136 of the Constitution in an appropriate case for challenging the order, inter alia, either on the ground or special leave mala fide or arbitrary or that it is based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Whether such a writ or special leave application ultimately fails is not relevant for a decision of the question. We are cle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al assessment order shall be passed without the permission of the court. Direct service is permitted." [8] Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that shifting of the PAN of the petitioner-Company is not justified as there are no financial transactions in connection with M/s Ravindu Motors Private Limited. It was submitted that the reliance placed in the impugned order on the CBDT Circular dated 24.05.2023 would not apply to the facts of the case in view of the following four reasons: i. Circular relates to "compulsory selection of returns for complete scrutiny during FY 2023-24" and it is not issued for "centralisation of search cases". It was pointed out that search was conducted on 15.12.2022, whereas Circular for that period i.e. for FY 2022-23 issued by CBDT Circular dated 11.05.2022, which provides that the jurisdiction of the appropriate assessee be transferred to the "Central Charge" and not with the jurisdiction be transferred to the very same Assessing Officer holding charge of the Searched Person. ii. It was further submitted that at no place in the Show Cause Notice dated 11.04.2023 or in the comments dated 01.05.2023 of DCI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessment order dated 25.03.2025 in case of Vijay Kirloskar for Assessment Year 2023-24 and Assessment order dated 07.03.2024 in case of M/s Ravindu Motors for Assessment Year 2022-23, to demonstrate that there is no addition made on account of any transaction with the petitioner - Company in case of those searched persons. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed under Section 127 of the Act is liable to be quashed and set aside. [8.4] It was also pointed out that only because Mr. Mohib N. Khericha is one of the Directors of M/s Ravindu Motors Private Limited and is also the Managing Director of the petitioner - Company, the PAN of the petitioner - Company could not have been transferred to Bengaluru in the guise of coordinated investigation, in absence of any material made available which may be relevant for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act. [8.5] Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar has also relied upon the Additional Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner placing on record the composition of Board of Directors, shareholdings, or detailed financial statements for the Financial Years 2021-22 to 2023-24 and company mas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent and contention raised therein. It is submitted that there is no infringement of fundamental rights enshrined by Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India while passing the impugned order. 7. With reference to para 3.2 to 3.5, the respondent denies each and every allegation, averment and contention raised therein. It is submitted that as stated hereinabove, a search operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 15-12-2022 in the case of Mr. Mohib N. Khericha, director of Chartered Capital and Investment Ltd. Residence of Mohib N. Khericha and corporate office of Chartered Capital and Investment Ltd. At 711, Mahakant, Paldi, Ahmedabad were covered. Shri Mohib N. Khericha, director of Chartered Capital and Investment Ltd. was one of the directors in Ravindu Motors Pvt. Ltd. and in past, had done transactions with the entities of the Ravindu Motors Pvt. group. It is thus submitted that the business premise of the assessee Chartered Capital and Investment Ltd. was covered u/s 132 of the Act. It is submitted that as per the guideline issued by the CBDT vide letter F.No.225/66/2023/ITA-II dated 24.05.2023, search and seizure cases u/s 132 and requisition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case and the material made available on record, it is not in dispute that Mr. Mohib Khericha was the Managing Director of the petitioner - Company and search took place in case of the Managing Director and other persons of the Kirloskar family. During the course of the search, the transactions pertaining Shri Mohib N. Khericha were found from the premises of the petitioner - Company, however, there is nothing on record to show that any documents or material is found pertaining to or relating to the petitioner - Company in connection with the searched persons. It is also pertinent to note that there is no search authorization in the case of the petitioner - Company issued by the respondents and therefore, only the premises of the petitioner - Company was under search as it could not have been the reason for transferring the PAN of the petitioner or centralization, while invoking the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. [11] On perusal of the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed under Section 127 of the Act while dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner, relied upon the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) where the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner 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 possible 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 Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner 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 Commissi....