TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for opportunity of personal hearing. In the reply, petitioner had also asked that the relied upon material be provided to it. However, on 22.06.2022, respondent-authority had passed the impugned order (Annexure P-3) under Section 127 of the Act without providing opportunity of personal hearing and relied upon material to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:- (i) As per Section 147 (2) (a) of the Act, where as transfer is made between two different Commissionerates, there must be positive agreement between the specified authorities and same must be part of the show cause notice and and final order passed under Section 127 of the Act. Reference has been made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Noorul Islam Educational Trust vs. CIT, 388 ITR 489. The said judgment was, later on, followed by the Bombay High Court in Rent Works India Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, 300 CTR 294. (ii) In the present case, there is no positive agreement between the two Commissionerate and hence, it is against the provisions of Section 127 (2) (a) of the Act. Hence, the impugned proceedings cannot legally su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner, whose name figured at Serial No.5. Thereafter, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Lucknow, vide letter dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure R-2), had given his consent for the centralization of the case pertaining to the petitioner to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad and asked him to pass the necessary order under Section 127 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. After the letter dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure R-2), notice dated 01.06.2022 was given to the petitioner in accordance with the provision of Section 127 of the Act. It has been further stated that in the case of Rent Works India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there was only a request, which had come from the investigation office, Chennai, however, in the present case, apart from the proposal by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Lucknow, there was due application of mind by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Lucknow, as is evident from the letter dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure R-2). The orders have been passed by following the procedure, as laid down in Section 127 of the Act. 4. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 5. Pursuant to the notice dated 01.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4, 16, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35 to 40 & 42 to 45) out of the 45 cases mentioned above, involve a change of station. Accordingly, the draft show cause notices in these cases submitted by the Addl. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Lucknow are being enclosed herewith along with copy to the jurisdictional transferor Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax for taking further necessary action at their end." 6. At this stage, reference can be made to the judgment passed in Genus Electrotech Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2017) 86 taxmann.com 39 (Gujarat), wherein the High Court of Gujarat was examining the power under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, which are concerned with larger public interest on one end and personal inconvenience on the other. However, as long as such powers are exercised bona fide, for public purpose and in the interest of Revenue, the role of the Court to dissect such reasons and to come to a different conclusion would be extremely limited. The orders passed for transfer under Section 127 of the Act are administrative orders and the Court has to examine that such orders can only be interfered if, the transfer has been made in wholly arbitrary ground. Reference h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss the country. In fact, the request seeking transfer has been made from two offices of the department i.e. PCIT, Mumbai and Kolkata. It appears from the materials on record that the main purpose of transfer on the ground of centralization of cases is to investigate the dubious transactions of the writ-applicant with various related entites during the relevant period. At this stage, we may refer to the order disposing of the objections raised by the assessee with regard to transfer passed by the Principal Commissioner dated 30.09.2020, which reads thus: "In consequence to search and seizure action under Section 132 (3) of the IT Act conducted in the case of Shri Gauray Krishnakant Laddha & Shri Kamleshkumar) Prajapati, Proprietor of M/s Kamleshkumar Mahendrakumar & Co. on 17.04.2018 by the DGIT (Inv), Mumbai centralization of above mentioned assessee with DCIT, Central Circle-8 (1), Mumbai in the charge of Pr. CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai was proposed to facilitate proper inquiry and coordinated investigation. Accordingly, this office vide letter No.PCIT-4/HQ/Centralization/KS/G K Laddha Group/2019-20 dated 04.11.2015 gave an opportunity of being heard to the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As per Section 127 of the Act, a notice is required to be issued, so that the assessee can get the information/reasons for transfer of the cases. Judgment passed in Deep Malhotra and others vs. CCIT & others, CWP No.17197 of 2008 (decided on 04.08.2009), which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case, the reasons for transfer have been given in detailed in the letter dated 28.03.2022 (Annexure R-1). Moreover, the impugned order dated 22.06.2022 (Annexure P-3) also reflects that the objections filed by the petitioner were carefully considered and notice has only been issued for the purpose of centralization. The assessee could ask for the documents during assessment proceedings. Hence, for all intents and purposes, reply dated 06.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner has been duly considered by the competent authority. After the decision given in Deep Malhotra's case (supra), the High Court of Gujarat has examined, in detail, that the orders under Section 127 of the Act are administrative orders and the Court has limited scope of interference in those orders unless they are arbitrary a....