Cwp/17591/2016 Of Ajay Goel v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Panchkula & Ors

--CWP 17591 2016-Dat e of deci si on: 29. 08. 2016 Aj ay Goel Ver sus . . . Pet i t i oner Chi ef Commi ssi oner of I ncome Tax, Panchkul a and ot her s . . . Respondent s CORAM: HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE S. J. VAZI FDAR, CHI EF JUSTI CEHON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE DEEPAK SI BAL Pr esent : -Mr . Aman Bansal , Advocat e, f or t he pet i t i oner . * * * * S. J. VAZI FDAR, C. J. ( ORAL) The pet i t i oner has chal l enged an or der under Sect i on127 of t he I ncome Tax Act , 1961 ( i n shor t t he Act ) t r ansf er r i ngt he cases r el at i ng t o hi m f r om t he Assessi ng Of f i cer ,Kur ukshet r a t o t he Assessi ng Of f i cer , Noi da.2.By a not i ce dat ed 05. 03. 2015, t he pet i t i oner wasi nf or med t hat sear ch and sei zur e oper at i on under Sect i on 132( 1)of t he Act was car r i ed outon 11. 11. 2014 on t he Ti r upat iGr oupand t he Sunwor l d Gr oup of Compani es and t hat t he pet i t i oner ’ scase was connect ed wi t h t heTi r upat i Gr oup. The pet i t i oneragr ees t hat he i s a par t ner i n one of t he f i r ms of t he Ti r upat iGr oup. The pet i t i oner was af f or ded an oppor t uni t y of hear i ng.The hear i ng was f i xed on 11. 03. 2015. The pet i t i oner , however ,onl y addr essed a r epl y dat ed 09. 03. 2015 and di d not avai l t heoppor t uni t y of bei ng hear d on 11. 03. 2015. The pet i t i onercont ended, i nt er al i a, t hat no i mpoundi ng had been done i n t hecase; t hat no obj ect i onabl e t hi ngs wer e f ound at hi s wor ks;t hat as per t he act i on pl an, no scr ut i ny can be done i n t heabsence of i mpoundi ng dur i ng sur vey oper at i ons and t hat hi sChar t er ed Account ant i s based i n Kur ukshet r a. 3.As we ment i oned ear l i er , t he pet i t i oner di d not avai lt he oppor t uni t y of bei ng hear d. The Commi ssi oner of I ncome Tax,t her ef or e,passedt he i mpugned or derdat ed 15. 04. 2015. Thei mpugned or der not ed t he r epl y f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner .Admi t t edl y, t he pet i t i oner i s connect ed wi t h a par t of t heTi r upat i Gr oup. The i mpugned or der was passed over a year ago.Ther e i s no val i d expl anat i on f or t he pet i t i oner havi ng wai t edover a year t o chal l enge t he same. 4.Lear ned counsel appear i ng on behal f of t he pet i t i onerst at es t hat t he sear ch and sei zur e oper at i on under Sect i on132( 1) has been chal l enged bef or e t he Del hi Hi gh Cour t and t hatt he same i s pl aced on boar d on 09. 11. 2016. 5.Our at t ent i on, however , has not been i nvi t ed t o anyst ay whi ch woul d enur e t o t he benef i t of t he pet i t i oner so f aras t he or der i mpugned i n t hi s wr i t pet i t i on i s concer ned,namel y, t he t r ansf er of t he pr oceedi ngs f r om Kur ukshet r a t oNoi da. 6.I n t he f act s and ci r cumst ances of t he case, we see nor eason t o i nt er f er e wi t h t he or der . I f ul t i mat el y t he or derpassed i n t he pr oceedi ngs f i l ed by t he Ti r upat i Gr oup bef or et he Del hi Hi gh Cour tdeal s wi t h t he pet i t i oner ’ s r i ght s i nr espect of t he or der i mpugned i n t hi s wr i t pet i t i on, t hepet i t i oner i s al ways at l i ber t y t o adopt appr opr i at epr oceedi ngs. 7.The wr i t pet i t i on i s accor di ngl y di sposed of . ( S. J. VAZI FDAR)CHI EF JUSTI CE