Telangana High Court
M/S Nexus Feeds Limited vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 19 November, 2018
Author: V.Ramasubramanian
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
*****
Writ Petition Nos.9147, 9352,
13217 and 13235 of 2018
Between
M/s Nexus Feeds Limited, Door No.8-1-301/86-87,
Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony,
Hyderabad-500 008, Rep. by its Managing Director
Goluguri Sri Rama Reddy; and others
... Petitioners
and
1. The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, 2nd Floor, A-Block,
A.C. Guards, I.T. Towers, Hyderabad-500 004;
and others
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 19-11-2018
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI
1 Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of the
Judgment?
2 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018
&batch
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HON'BLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI
+ Writ Petition Nos.9147, 9352,
13217 and 13235 of 2018
% Date: 19-11-2018
W.P.No.9147 of 2018:
# 1. M/s Nexus Feeds Limited, Door No.8-1-301/86-87,
Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony,
Hyderabad-500 008, Rep. by its Managing Director
Goluguri Sri Rama Reddy
2. M/s Nexus Well Hops Agritech International Ltd., Plot No.62,
Survey No.137, Mamatha Nagar Colony, Nagole, Hyderabad-
500 068, Rep. by its Director Smt. Goluguri Radha
... Petitioners
Vs.
$ 1. The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, 2nd Floor, A-Block,
A.C. Guards, I.T. Towers, Hyderabad-500 004
2. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1,
5th Floor, Shiva Towers, Dhanavaipeta, Rajamahendravaram
3. The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam
Aayakar Bhavan, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam-530 020
... Respondents
W.P.No.9352 of 2018:
# 1. Goluguri Srirama Reddy S/o Satyanarayana Reddy,
Aged 49 years, R/o D.No.229/2, Tadepalligudem Road,
Bhimavaram-534 204, West Godavari Dist., Andhra Pradesh
2. Goluguri Venkata Reddy S/o Satyanarayana Reddy,
Aged 50 years, R/o HG-103, A1, Housing Board Colony,
Street No.7, Bhimavaram-534 204, W.G. Dist., A.P.
3. Goluguri Rama Krishna Reddy S/o Satyanarayana Reddy,
Aged 54 years, R/o Flat No.F-8, D.No.26-8-28, Sai Apartments,
Balusumudi, Bhimavaram-534 204, W.G. Dist., A.P.
4. M/s Golden Feeds, Plot No.101, Lakshmi Nagar Colony,
Sheikpeta Nala, Hyderabad-500 008, Rep. by its Partner
Goluguri Rama Krishna Reddy
5. M/s Reddy & Reddy Infrastructure, F-8,
Shiridi Sai Apartments, Bhimavaram, W.G. Dist., A.P.,
Rep. by its Partner Goluguri Venkata Reddy
... Petitioners
Vs.
$ 1. The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aayakar Bhawan, Near Kambala Tank, Veerabadrapuram,
Rajamahendravaram-533 105, East Godavari District, A.P.
2. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1,
5th Floor, Shiva Towers, Dhanavaipeta, Rajamahendravaram
3 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018
&batch
3. The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam
Aayakar Bhavan, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam-530 020
... Respondents
W.P.No.13217 of 2018:
# 1. M/s Nutrient Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd., D.No.39-11-63/2,
Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 007,
Rep. by its Director Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy
2. M/s Neopride Pharmaceuticals Ltd., H.No.48-15-7,
Sai Paradise Apartments, Srinagar, Dwarakanagar,
Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Director Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy
... Petitioners
Vs.
$ 1. The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
Visakhapatnam Aayakar Bhawan, Dabagardens,
Visakhapatnam-530 020
2. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I,
5th Floor, Shiva Towers, D.No.46-20-15,
Opp. Narayana College, Dhanavaipeta, Rajamahendravaram
... Respondents
W.P.No.13235 of 2018:
# M/s Nancy Industries Ltd., Plot NO.89, Road No.71,
Navanirman Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad,
Rep. by its Director Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy
... Petitioner
Vs.
$ 1. The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, 2nd Floor, A-Block,
A.C. Guards, I.T. Towers, Hyderabad-500 004
2. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I,
5th Floor, Shiva Towers, Dhanavaipeta, Rajamahendravaram
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Challa Gunaranjan
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma,
Smt. M.Kiranmayee and
Mr. Raji Reddy,
Senior Standing Counsel
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. [2016] 388 ITR 489 (SC)
2. [1993] 200 ITR 697 (Bom)
4 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018
&batch
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HON'BLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI
Writ Petition Nos.9147, 9352,
13217 and 13235 of 2018
Common Order:(per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) As against the orders passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, centralising and transferring the cases of the assessees who are either individuals or firms or limited companies, from different circles to the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Rajamahendravaram, the assessees have come up with the above writ petitions.
2. Heard Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, Smt. M.Kiranmayee and Mr. Raji Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department.
3. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted on 18-01-2017, simultaneously at Hyderabad, Bhimavaram and Visakhapatnam in the premises of a group of companies, which we shall refer to for the purpose of convenience as Nexus Feeds Limited Group, and in the residences of its Promoters and Directors, who, apart from being Promoters of certain limited companies, are also partners of certain partnership firms. Pursuant to the search and seizure operation, a proposal was mooted by the Principal 5 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch Commissioner of Income Tax, for coordinated investigation and correlation.
4. Therefore, as required by Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessees, through individual letters of different dates. In response to the proposals, the assessees submitted a reply requesting the competent authority, to centralise all cases at Hyderabad, on the ground that the registered offices of the limited companies are located in Hyderabad and that the books of accounts of the companies are also maintained at Hyderabad.
5. However, by separate orders passed under Section 127, the competent authority transferred all the cases to Central Circle-I, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. It is against these orders that the different assessees forming part of the same group, either as companies or as individual promoters, have come up with the above writ petitions.
6. Before proceeding further, it may be useful to record that there are 8 companies, 2 firms and 7 individuals, who were subjected to search and seizure operations. The names of the assessees, their status, the present jurisdiction, the reasons for centralisation and the investigation potential of all these 17 assessees, are presented in a tabular column by the Department, which may be extracted as follows:
6 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch Sl Name & PAN and Present Reasons for Investigation No address of the status jurisdiction centralisation potential of assessee the cases in view of the findings of search and suspicious nature of transactions between the said persons and the search group 1 M/s Nexus AADCN ACIT, The concern is Share Capital Feeds Ltd. 2786N C-16(1), engaged in was Company Hyderabad manufacture of introduced premium into the quality feeds company with the through technical suspected collaboration bogus names with M/s who have no Hanaqua Tech means of INC, Taiwan income 2 M/s Nexus AAFCN ITO, The concern Share Capital Well Hope 0930L W-9(1), was was Agri Tech Company Hyderabad incorporated in introduced International Dec 2015 by into the Ltd. Reddy & Reddy company Group in through collaboration suspected with Well-Hope bogus names Agritech, a Chinese company 3 M/s Real AAFCR ITO, The concern Share Capital Grow Exims 9516A W-2(1), was was Pvt. Ltd. Company Vizag incorporated in introduced 2012 which is into the into trading of company feeds through manufactures suspected by Nexus Feeds bogus names who have no means of income 4 M/s Nutrient AADCN ACIT, The company is Share Capital Marine Foods 8342E C-3(1), one of the was Ltd. Company Vizag leading introduced processor and into the exporter of company frozen sea through foods in India suspected bogus names 5 Sri Bairi APZPB ITO, W-1, He is the Admitted to Simhachalam 6635G Bhimavaram internal auditor have received Individual of all the remuneration related in cash over concerns of and above Reddy & Reddy regular salary Group for managing all financial affairs of the group 7 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch companies 6 Sri Goluguri ACNPS ITO, W-2, He is the Beneficiary of Sri Rama 3547B Bhimavaram Director in multiple Reddy Individual Nutrient transactions Marine Foods in group Ltd., Nexus companies Feeds Ltd., and has Nancy made Industries Ltd., investments Novelty Reddy for which & Reddy sources do Motors Pvt. not exist Ltd., Lekhya Motors Pvt.
Ltd., Neopride Pharmaceu-
ticals Ltd.
7 Sri Goluguri ABCPE ITO, W-2, He is the elder Unexplained
Nagi Reddy 1138L Bhimavaram brother of Mr. jewellery
Individual Rama Krishna found &
Reddy, seized
Mr. Srirama
Reddy,
Mr. Venkata
Reddy
8 Sri Goluguri ABKPG ITO, W-2, He is the Beneficiary of
Venkata 1135F Bhimavaram Director in multiple
Reddy Individual Read Grow transactions
Exims Pvt. in group
Ltd., Nexus companies
Feeds Ltd., and has
Nancy made
Industries Ltd., investments
Novelty Reddy for which
& Reddy sources do
Motors Pvt. not exist
Ltd., Neopride
Pharmaceu-
ticals Ltd.
9 Sri Goluguri ACHPR ITO, W-2, He is the Beneficiary of
Ramakrishna 2816G Bhimavaram Director in multiple
Reddy Individual Nexus Feeds transactions
Ltd., Nutrient in group
Marine Foods companies
Ltd., Nexus and has
Well-Hope made
Agritech Intl. investments
Ltd., Nancy for which
Industries Ltd., sources do
Novelty Reddy not exist.
& Reddy Purshased
Motors Pvt. multiple
Ltd., Neopride properties for
Pharmaceu- which
ticals Ltd. sources stand
unexplained
10 M/s Risley AAGCR Circle 17(2), A trading entity Certain
Feeds Ltd. 2255P Hyderabad dealing with Investors
Company products and have
raw materials admitted to
relating to have not
group invested in
companies, the company
managed in the at all
name of KND
Prasad Reddy,
Satti Chandra
8 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018
&batch
Sekhar Reddy
& Sheik Meera
Mohiddin
11 M/s Reddy & AAOFR Ward-1, The concern is Executed
Reddy 5799M Bhimavaram a partnership multiple
Infrastructure Firm firm of infrastructure
G.Ramakrishna projects and
Redd, layout for
G.Venkata which income
Reddy, has not been
G.Radha, brought to
G.Lakshmi tax and
Parvathy and source of
G.Satya Prabha investments
are not
explained
12 M/s Neopride AAECN Ward 2(1), The concern Share
Pharmaceu- 3023B Visakha- has G.Srirama application
ticals Ltd. Company patnam Reddy, money is
G.Venkata unexplained
Reddy, and source of
G.Ramakrishna investments
Reddy and Raja made is
Sekhara Reddy unexplained
Tetali as
Directors
13 M/s Golden AAIFG Ward 1, The concern is Large
Feeds 3148A Bhimavaram run by Mr number of
Firm G.Ramakrishna cash deposits
Reddy and Ms. made into
G.Radha company
accounts
14 M/s Nancy AADCG Ward 2(2), The concern is Investigation
Industries 1166F Hyderabad run by Mr in progress
Ltd. (formerly Company G.Ramakrishna
known as Reddy, Mr
Goluguri G.Venkat
Steels) Reddy and Mr
G.Srirama
Reddy
15 Sri K.N.D. AJUPR He is one of the Statement
Prasad Reddy 6033K Directors in recorded from
Individual M/s Real Grow the person
Exims (P) Ltd. and the
investigation
in progress
16 Sri Syed AAKPO Non Corp He is the Statement
Obaid Ahmed 6762H Ward 10(3), Proprietor of recorded from
(Prop: Pioneer Company Chennai M/s Pioneer the person
Equipments & Equipments & and the
Infrastru- Infrastructure, investigation
cture) the firm which in progress
is involved in
the routing of
machinery
from Golden
Feeds to Nexus
Feeds
17 Sri Sheik EVJPS Ward 1, He is one of the Investigation
Meera 3348D Bhimavaram Directors in in progress
Mohiddin Individual Risely Feeds
Pvt. Ltd.
9 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018
&batch
7. Out of the 17 assessees whose names are listed in the tabulation above, only 5 limited companies, 3 individuals and 2 firms alone have come up with the above writ petitions. While 2 companies have come up with one single writ petition, 2 other companies have come up with another writ petition, the 5th company has come up with 1 writ petition and 3 individuals and 2 firms have come up with 1 writ petition. For the purpose of easy appreciation, persons/companies who are petitioners in the writ petitions and their present place of jurisdiction for assessment, are given in a tabular column as follows:
Names of assesses W.P.No. Present jurisdiction
1. M/s Nexus Feeds Limited, Door No.8-1-301/ 9147/2018 Hyderabad 86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008, Rep. by its Managing Director Goluguri Sri Rama Reddy
2. M/s Nexus Well Hops Agritech International Ltd., Plot No.62, Survey No.137, Mamatha Nagar Colony, Nagole, Hyderabad-500 068, Rep. by its Director Smt. Goluguri Radha
1. Goluguri Srirama Reddy S/o Satyanarayana 9352/2018 Bhimavaram, Reddy, Aged 49 years, R/o D.No.229/2, West Godavari Tadepalligudem Road, Bhimavaram-534204, District West Godavari Dist., Andhra Pradesh
2. Goluguri Venkata Reddy S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 50 years, R/o HG-103, A1, Housing Board Colony, Street No.7, Bhimavaram-534 204, W.G. Dist., A.P.
3. Goluguri Rama Krishna Reddy S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 54 years, R/o Flat No.F-8, D.No.26-8-28, Sai Apartments, Balusumudi, Bhimavaram- 534 204, W.G. Dist., A.P.
4. M/s Golden Feeds, Plot No.101, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Sheikpeta Nala, Hyderabad- 500 008, Rep. by its Partner Goluguri Rama Krishna Reddy
5. M/s Reddy & Reddy Infrastructure, F-8, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Bhimavaram, W.G. Dist., A.P., Rep. by its Partner Goluguri Venkata Reddy
1. M/s Nutrient Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd., 13217/2018 Visakhapatnam 10 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch D.No.39-11-63/2, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 007, Rep. by its Director Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy
2. M/s Neopride Pharmaceuticals Ltd., H.No.48-15-7, Sai Paradise Apartments, Srinagar, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Director Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy M/s Nancy Industries Ltd., Plot No.89, 13235/2018 Hyderabad Road No.71, Navanirman Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy
8. From the above, it is clear that out of the 10 persons/ companies who are the writ petitioners in the 4 writ petitions on hand, 5 of them are assessees on the file of the competent authority in Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, 3 of them are assessees in Hyderabad and 2 are assessees in Visakhapatnam. The fact that the companies form a conglomerate and that the first 3 writ petitioners in W.P.No. 9352 of 2018 are blood-brothers residing in Bhimavaram and happen to be the Promoters of the limited companies, are all not disputed. In other words, 5 out of the 10 petitioners in these writ petitions are permanent residents of Bhimavaram and are also assessees on the file of the authority in Bhimavaram. If no steps had been taken for centralisation under Section 127, those 5 writ petitioners would have continued to be assessed on the file of the officer in Bhimavaram. Similarly, 2 companies who are petitioners in one writ petition are assessed at Visakhapatnam and if no order under section 127 had been passed, they would have been assessed there. It is relevant to note that none of the assessees in these cases sought centralisation or transfer. Therefore, at least the 3 individuals and 2 partnership firms 11 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch which are the petitioners in W.P.No.9352 of 2018 cannot really have an objection, as their cases stand transferred only to Rajamahendravaram, in the neighbouring district. Keeping this fact in mind, let us now see the grounds on which the impugned orders of centralisation and transfer are assailed.
9. Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted - (i) that at least in respect of 3 companies, the centralisation and transfer of cases is ordered, from one State to another viz., the State of Telangana to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the same could not have been done without an agreement in writing between the Principal Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners of both the States; and (ii) that though the individuals as well as the partnership firms involved in these cases are assessees on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhimavaram, the registered offices of the group companies are admittedly situate at Hyderabad and are assessed to tax at Hyderabad and that therefore a mighty department of the Government of India having its presence in Hyderabad in a more pronounced manner than in Rajamahendravaram cannot put the assessees to a disadvantage especially when the books of accounts are maintained at Hyderabad.
10. We have carefully considered the above submissions.
11. The first contention is based upon Section 127(2)(a). It reads as follows:
12 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch "127. Power to transfer cases.
(2) Whether the Assessing Officer of 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,--
(a) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners 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) ........................................................................"
12. In Noorul Islam Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income-Tax1, the Supreme Court pointed out that in the absence of an agreement between the Directors General or Chief Commissioners of two different jurisdictions, the transfer of the file from one office in one State cannot be ordered to another office in another State.
13. On principle, there can be no dispute about the legal position that is sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. But as a matter of fact, it is stated by the Department on oath in the counter affidavit that the Assessing Officers at Rajamahendravaram and at Hyderabad 1 [2016] 388 ITR 489 (SC) 13 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch continue to come under the control of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. It is specifically contended by the Department that the Assessing Officer in Hyderabad as well as the Assessing Officer in Rajamahendravaram are subordinate to the same Principal Chief Commissioner. Therefore, the legal issue sought to be raised, does not arise in the cases on hand.
14. The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the registered offices of all the corporate entities who are the writ petitioners in 3 out of 4 writ petitions on hand, are situate at Hyderabad and that all the books of accounts are also maintained at Hyderabad. The presence of the Department in Hyderabad is more pronounced than their presence in a district headquarters and hence it is contended that the centralisation and transfer of cases to Hyderabad may prove to be convenient to both the Department as well as the assessees, while it may prove to be inconvenient to the assessees if they are transferred to Rajamahendravaram.
15. In the normal circumstances, we would go by this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The centralisation and transfer of cases, should result in the least inconvenience to both parties. It is true that the assessees, are facing a mighty department of the Government. It is also true that the presence of the Department in the State capital, may be more pronounced than their presence in district headquarters. Therefore, if the cases are centralised 14 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch and transferred to Hyderabad, it may not result in any inconvenience to the Department. On the contrary, the same may inconvenience the assessees, if the books of accounts are also in Hyderabad.
16. But in cases of this nature, the scope of judicial review of the decision taken by the competent authority to transfer cases, is confined only to the question of relative hardship. As pointed out by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Devidas v. Union of India2, the test lies in a proportionate mix of considerations of the convenience of an assessee vis-a-vis the interest of Revenue. The Court should aim at striking a balance between private and public interests.
17. The Court has essentially to test the impugned orders - (i) on the touchstone of the procedure prescribed in Section 127(1), (ii) on the touchstone of the authority on whom the power of transfer is conferred under Section 127 and (iii) on the touchstone of relative hardship.
18. In the cases on hand, we find that the procedure prescribed in Section 127(1), viz., that of giving an opportunity of being heard, has been complied with. The argument revolving around the necessity of an agreement as required by Section 127(2)(a) has also failed on factual grounds. Therefore, what is left is only the question of relative hardship.
2 [1993] 200 ITR 697 (Bom) 15 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch
19. The Department has filed separate counter affidavits in all the cases. The main theme of the song tuned by the Department in the counter affidavits is - (i) that the Promoter Directors of the corporate entities in these cases have introduced unexplained share capital/share application money to the tune of Rs.48 Crores in one case and Rs.34 Crores in another case, in the names of more than 300 subscribers/shareholders, (ii) that the common feature observed by the Department was that the so-called subscribers and shareholders who reside in and around Bhimavaram, had filed returns of income for the first time in the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14, (iii) that a majority of those share applicants have declared almost equivalent incomes for the two assessment years, by resorting to estimation under Section 44AB, (iv) that the very identities of these persons and their creditworthiness are doubtful, requiring investigation, (v) that the search and seizure operations unearthed lot of cash deposits into bank accounts operated in Bhimavaram, but they are not recorded in the books of accounts of the firm having its office at Bhimavaram,
(vi) that in the course of investigation and enquiry, the Department may have to examine all related parties, bogus shareholders and benamidars, if any and (vii) that therefore it is not possible to collect oral evidence of these parties at Hyderabad.
16 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch
20. In the light of the averments made by the Department in their counter affidavits, the gist of which we have extracted in the preceding paragraph, it is clear that the centralisation and transfer of cases to Hyderabad may prove to be futile, as the Department may not be able to summon all the witnesses from Bhimavaram. Even if they have the power to summon, the same will inconvenience hundreds of persons residing in Bhimavaram, provided they are actually in existence.
21. We have already given a tabulation of the number of assessees (17 in number), their present jurisdiction and the reasons for centralisation as given by the Department in an Annexure to the counter affidavit. The same discloses that the hardship that would be caused to the witnesses and the inconvenience that would be caused to the Department in dealing with these cases at Hyderabad are far more than that of the assessees. Therefore, even on the question of relative hardship, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned orders.
22. As we have pointed out earlier, there are four writ petitions on hand. The petitioners in W.P.No.9352 of 2018 are all assessees on the file of the Income Tax Officer at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. Therefore, they cannot have a grievance about the transfer of cases to Rajamahendravaram in East Godavari District, which is a neighbouring district. Similarly, the petitioners in W.P.No. 17 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch 13217 of 2018 are assessees on the file of the jurisdictional officer at Visakhapatnam. Therefore, they cannot also have a grievance about the transfer of the cases to East Godavari District, as both the districts are located in the State of Andhra Pradesh and even the contention revolving around Section 127(2)(a) will not apply to their cases. Rajamahendravaram is closer to Visakhapatnam than to Hyderabad.
23. That leaves us only with the remaining two writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.9147 and 13235 of 2018. For the reasons stated above, we find that the petitioners in these two cases also may not suffer as much hardship as the one that the witnesses may undergo and the difficulties that the Department may suffer if the transfer is not ordered to Rajamahendravaram.
24. Therefore, all the writ petitions are devoid of merits. Hence, they are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
________________ J.UMA DEVI, J.
19th November, 2018.
Ak Note:-
1. Website
2. L.R. Copy to be marked.
(B/o) Ak 18 VRS, J. & JUD, J.
wp_9147_2018 &batch HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI Writ Petition Nos.9147, 9352, 13217 and 13235 of 2018 (Common Order) 19th November, 2018.
(Ak)