Bombay High Court
Divesh P Jain vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 1 December, 2021
Bench: K. R. Shriram, Amit B. Borkar
1 902-WP 1908-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1908 OF 2021
Divesh Prakashchand Jain ] ... Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Commissioner of Income ]
Tax-27, Navi Mumbai & Ors. ] ... Respondents
Mr. Devendra H. Jain for Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents.
Mr. M. J. Babu, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-27, Navi Mumbai,
present.
CORAM :- K. R. SHRIRAM &
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE :- 01 DECEMBER, 2021
P. C. :-
1. Heard both sides.
2. The Petition is challenging an order dated 10/08/2021 passed by CCIT, Mumbai-27, under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') transferring the case of Petitioner for centralising Petitioner's case to the charge of DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru.
URS 1 of 4 Digitally signed UMESH by UMESH RAMESH RAMESH SHINDE SHINDE Date: 2021.12.02 11:30:35 +0530 2 902-WP 1908-21.odt
3. Petitioner is a partner in a firm called S. S. Jewellery which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of gold ornaments having its principal place of business at Mumbai. The firm has a branch at Bengaluru. It is Petitioner's case that in the course of its business, the firm sent samples, jewellery, etc., to Bengaluru to be displayed to potential customers. On 20/11/2020, 2 employees of Petitioner's firm were intercepted by the Bengaluru Police and 6055.23 gms. of gold jewellery belonging to the firm was found on them.
4. Investigations commenced and a case before the Addl.CMM, Bengaluru is pending. The DDIT (Investigation) Unit-3(3), Bengaluru is a Respondent in that case before the learned Addl.CMM.
5. By a notice dated 07/04/2021 issued under Section 127(2), Respondent No.1 called upon Petitioner to show cause as to why Petitioner's case should not be transferred to Bengaluru for completing the assessment proceedings. Petitioner filed a reply dated 09/04/2021 showing show cause notice as to why his case should not be transferred. Petitioner's objections were rejected and the order dated 10/08/2021 that is impugned in this Petition came to be passed.
URS 2 of 4
3 902-WP 1908-21.odt
6. We have perused the notice as well as the order passed by Respondent No.1 and in our view, there is no case made out for transferring Petitioner's case to Bengaluru. Under Section 127(2) of the Act, where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers 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, where the ....... Commissioner to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the ....... 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. It is true in this case Petitioner was given a show-cause notice and the personal hearing was granted before passing the order impugned but the reasons recorded in the order are certainly subject to judicial scrutiny and must be reasonable. In impugned order, Respondent No.1 has only narrated the facts but has not given any reasons why in the facts and circumstances of the case, Petitioner's case has to be transferred to Bengaluru. Petitioner is assessed in Mumbai and the firm of which Petitioner is a partner is also assessed in Mumbai.
URS 3 of 4
4 902-WP 1908-21.odt
7. Pending of a case before the learned Addl.CMM cannot be accepted as reason for transfer of Petitioner's assessment from Mumbai to Bengaluru.
8. In the circumstances, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under :-
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order of direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the order u/s 127 dated 10.08.2021 ("Exhibit K") transferring the Petitioner's case to Bengaluru jurisdiction".
9. At the same time, Petitioner is hereby directed to fully co- operate with the authorities in Bengaluru, provide all documents required for the purpose of investigation / assessment and also appear for recording his statement in Bengaluru or Mumbai as and when called for (subject to giving a reasonable notice in advance of the date and time to be present) and co-operate in every possible way with the Bengaluru office of the Revenue.
10. Petition disposed.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) URS 4 of 4