Gautam Singh Karnawat v. Income Tax Officer, Ward Bhiwadi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2360/2024 Gautam Singh Karnawat S/o Shri Jai Singh Karnawat, AgedAbout 60 Years, Resident Of L-825, Ashiana Aangan, AlwarByepass, Bhiwadi, District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central CircleAlwar Having Its Address At Room No.-102, Ist Floor, NewAdmin Bsnl Building, Opp. Cr Building, Moti Dungri Circle,Alwar, 301001Alwar Having Its Address At Room No.-102, Ist Floor, NewAdmin Bsnl Building, Opp. Cr Building, Moti Dungri Circle,Alwar, 301001 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward Bhiwadi, Having Its Address AtB-294-295, Green Tower, Riico Chowk, Bhiwadi.B-294-295, Green Tower, Riico Chowk, Bhiwadi. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 51(5), Delhi Having Its AddressAt Civic Centre, E-2, Block, New Delhi.At Civic Centre, E-2, Block, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apeksha Bapna with Mr. Rohan Chatter for Mr. Rohan Chatter for Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Saurabh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Mittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 18/03/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL) 1.Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that the issueinvolved in the present writ petition, is covered by the decision ofthis Court dated 04.03.2025 in D.B. Civil Writ PetitionNo.3432/2018, wherein the following order was passed:- “1.This petition is filed seeking quashing of orderdated17.11.2017 passed by the Principal Commissionerof Income-tax, Jaipur-2 under Section 127 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) transferringthe case of assessment of the assessee from Jaipur toACIT, Central Circle - Bikaner (hereinafter referred toas ‘ACIT’).dated17.11.2017 passed by the Principal Commissionerof Income-tax, Jaipur-2 under Section 127 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) transferringthe case of assessment of the assessee from Jaipur toACIT, Central Circle - Bikaner (hereinafter referred toas ‘ACIT’). 2.The grievance raised in the present petition isthat the order passed is in violation of principles ofnatural justice and without following the procedureprescribed u/s 127 of the Act. Reliance is placed upondecision of the Supreme Court in case of AjanthaIndustries and Ors. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes,New Delhi and Ors. reported in AIR 1976 SC 437. 3.Learned counsel for the respondents submits thatACIT, Bikaner has passed the assessment order againstwhich petitioner preferred an appeal. Argument is thattransfer order has been acted upon by the department.4.The petitioner raised objection before the ACITthat the order of transferring jurisdiction was notcommunicated to the petitioner and that the order waspassed without providing an opportunity of hearing.The objections were noted but ACIT proceeded to passassessment order stating that jurisdiction has beenbestowed by transfer order dated 17.11.2017. Whileissuing notice of motion on 27.02.2018, operation ofthe provisional attachment order dated 13.12.2017 andassessment order dated 26.12.2017 passed by theACIT was stayed. 5.There is no provision in the Act for challengingthe transfer orders passed u/s 127 by way of filing anappeal or revision. The contention of the counsel forthe respondents that the appeal is pending against theassessment order passed by the ACIT does not oustthe petitioner from assailing legality and validity of thetransfer order in writ jurisdiction. 6.Section 127 of the Act empowers transfer ofcases and prescribes procedure to be followed. Theauthorized officer can transfer the cases after providingreasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesseeand by passing a reasoned order. Exception for notgranting opportunity of hearing is in sub-section (3)i.e. in cases where transfer is from one assessingauthority to another situated in the same city. 5.There is no provision in the Act for challengingthe transfer orders passed u/s 127 by way of filing anappeal or revision. The contention of the counsel forthe respondents that the appeal is pending against theassessment order passed by the ACIT does not oustthe petitioner from assailing legality and validity of thetransfer order in writ jurisdiction. 6.Section 127 of the Act empowers transfer ofcases and prescribes procedure to be followed. Theauthorized officer can transfer the cases after providingreasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesseeand by passing a reasoned order. Exception for notgranting opportunity of hearing is in sub-section (3)i.e. in cases where transfer is from one assessingauthority to another situated in the same city. 7.In the present case, the case of the petitionerwas transferred from Jaipur to Bikaner, differentdistricts. It is undisputed that no opportunity of hearingwas granted to the petitioner before passing theimpugned order. 8.From perusal of the impugned order, it isforthcoming that it is bereft of reasons. The principlesof natural justice have been included in Section 127 ofthe Act yet were not complied with. 9.The Supreme Court in case of Ajantha Industries(supra) set aside the transfer orders in case wherereasons for transfer were available on record but werenot communicated to the assessee. It is not the case of the department that reasons were ever recorded. Bethat as it may, no opportunity of hearing was grantedto the petitioner. The impugned order dated17.11.2017 qua petitioner and proceedings consequentthereto are quashed. 10.The writ petition is allowed.11.The department shall be at liberty to proceed inaccordance with law.” 2.The present petition is disposed of in the same terms. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J SAHIL SONI /182