Jagmohan Krishan Dang v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Others

Civil Writ Petition No.1894of 2011 **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1894of 2011Date of decision: 7.4.2011 Jagmohan Krishan Dang ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Income-Tax and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This petition seeks quashing of order dated 18.10.2010passed under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) transferring the case of thepetitioner for assessment from Gurgaon to Delhi. 2.The reason for transfer mentioned in the impugned orderis that the assessee was connected to the group of Ashok Solomanand Chintels Group of companies where search & seizure had beencarried on 26.3.2010. It was considered necessary for coordinatedpost search investigation and proper framing of assessment that the case of the petitioner should be transferred to Delhi. Opportunity ofbeing heard was given to the assessee and his view point was takeninto account. The assessee was a lawyer for the group of companieswhose cases were being investigated and had also purchased landfrom the said group. After purchasing the said land, he had enteredinto a collaboration agreement with the associate company of thesaid group of companies. In these circumstances, the Commissionerrecorded satisfaction that for coordinated investigation transfer ofthe case of the petitioner from Gurgaon to Delhi was necessary. 3.According to the petitioner, there was no valid ground fortransfer as he was merely a lawyer and had no financial associationwith the group of companies whose assessment was taking place atDelhi. Mere fact that he purchased land and entered into acollaboration agreement did not render it necessary to club his casewith the cases of the group of companies whose investigation wasbeing done. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereasons given for exercising jurisdiction to transfer of assessmentare not germane. There is no material to show any financial nexusbetween the petitioner and the searched companies. Solitarytransaction of purchase of land stood disclosed by the petitioner inhis return. 6.We are unable to accept the submission. 7.There is no doubt that under Section 127 of the Act assessment can be transferred to a place other than the place ofnormal assessment only for adequate reasons. Such jurisdictionhas to be exercised fairly and after complying with the principles ofnatural justice by giving hearing and recording reasons. Oncebonafide opinion is formed on the basis of valid reasons, order oftransfer is not liable to be interfered with. 8. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner haddealings with the group of companies not only as a lawyer but also indealing with the property, having financial implications. Theadequacy of reasons or the fact that the different remedy could betaken under Section 153C of the Act, as suggested by learnedcounsel for the petitioner, cannot be a ground to interfere with theimpugned order. 9.In view of above, no ground is made out for interference.Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 07, 2011Pka (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge