La No: 1 Of 2023 v. Krisha Kaudinya, Senior [Counsel]For Srl A. V. A. Siva Kartikeya

HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. ANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 35029 Between: M/s Akshara Enterprises [Private ][Limited ], [3-6-18211 ][and ][2, ][Street ][N9" ][17']ttimaviihnaoar. Hvderabad - [500 ][029, ][Telangana. Represented ][by ][its]Nlana'ging Direitor, Mr. Sreedhar [Munnamgi, S/o ][Mr. ][M.Bhadt''ul..r=r,r,o*r*] AND 1. The Princioal Commissioner [of lncome Tax, Hyderabad ][- ][1, ][7th ][Floor, A]Block, lT iowers, AC Guards, [Masab ][Tank, Hyderabad - ][500 ][q0-4' ][Telangana']Block, lT iowers, AC Guards, [Masab ][Tank, Hyderabad - ][500 ][q0-4' ][Telangana']Z. fne tncome Tax Officer, [Ward 4(1), Hyderabad, ][lT ][Towers, AC ][Guards,]Masab Tank, Hyderabad [[- ]]500 [004, Telangana']Masab Tank, Hyderabad [[- ]]500 [004, Telangana'] [[- ]]3. ihe Principa'l C6missioner [of ][lncome Tax, Central ][- ][2, Mumbai, ][Air ][lndia]Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai [- ][400-021' Maharashtra.]Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai [- ][400-021' Maharashtra.] +. ihebeiutv Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax, Central Circle ][4(4) ]' [tvlumbai, Air]lndia Auilding, Nariman [Point, Mumbai ][- ][40o ] [, ][Maharashtra' ].lndia Auilding, Nariman [Point, Mumbai ][- ][40o ] [, ][Maharashtra' ].S. tne Oirector"General of [lncome Tax ][(lnvestigation ]), [Mumbai, Scindia ][House,]N.Morarii Road. Ballard Estate' [Mumbai ][- ][400 ][001' ][Maharashtra']N.Morarii Road. Ballard Estate' [Mumbai ][- ][400 ][001' ][Maharashtra']o. - ini vu-mlii O"rjuivTAilaitionat StinOli ftouse, [Director General of lncome Tax ]N.Morarji Road' Ballard Estate, [(lnvestigatigl')'919)]Mumbai - 400 001'lvaharashtra' lvaharashtra' ...RESP.N'ENTS Petition under Article 226 of [lhe constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in [the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, [one, more particularly ][in ][the ][nature ][of]Mandamus, declaring the [order uls ][127 ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][196f ][in]F.No..Pr.ClT-1 ,Hyd/127lNon- [Local/AkshraEnterprises/2023-24, ][passed ][by ][the]1st Respondent on 20.11.2023, [vide DIN ][and ][order ][No. ][ITBA/COMlFl1712023']2411058059987(1 ), [as arbitrary, illegal, bad ][in ][law, without jurisdiction, ][violative]of principles of natural [justice, ][and consequently set aside ][the ][same] lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section [15'1 ] [praying ][that in ][the ][circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit filed [in ][support ][of ][the petition, ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to] rf grant stay of all further proceedings, including any recovery, [pursuant ]to [the]order u/s 127 of lhe lncome Tax Act, 1961, in [F.No.. ][Pr.ClT-1 ],Hyd/1 [27lNon-]Local/AkshraEnterprises/2023-24, [passed ]by the [1st Respondent ][on ][20.11.2023,]vide DIN and Order No.. ITBA/COMlFl17l2j23-24l1058059987(1), [pending]disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. KRISHA KAUDINYA, SENIOR FOR SRl A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for Respondents: SMT. B. SAPNA REDDY, SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.35O29 OF 2o23 ORDER:lper Hon'bte Srt Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.V.A. Siva Kartikaya,learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.B.Sapna Reddy,learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2023 passed byrespondent No.1 under Section 127 of tlne Income Tax Act, 1961(for short, the Act) and the consequential notice dated30.11.2023 issued by respondent No.3 under Sub-section (1) ofSection 142 of the Act, the present Writ Petition has been frled. Counsel for Respondents: SMT. B. SAPNA REDDY, SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.35O29 OF 2o23 ORDER:lper Hon'bte Srt Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.V.A. Siva Kartikaya,learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.B.Sapna Reddy,learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2023 passed byrespondent No.1 under Section 127 of tlne Income Tax Act, 1961(for short, the Act) and the consequential notice dated30.11.2023 issued by respondent No.3 under Sub-section (1) ofSection 142 of the Act, the present Writ Petition has been frled. 3. Vide the inpugned order dated 20.11.2023, respondentNo. 1 in a proceeding under Section 127 of the Act, transferredthe case of the petitioner from the jurisdiction of The Income TaxOfficer, Ward a(1), Hyderabad (respondent No.2 herein) to thejurisdiction of The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CentralCircle 4(4), Mumbai (respondent No.4 heiein). Upon the matterbeing transferred, as a consequence, respondent No.4 issued thenotice date430.1 1O23 under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 of PSK,J & NTR,IWp_35029_2023Wp_35029_2023 the Act to the petitioner, which led to frling of the instant WritPetitionPetition 4. The brief facts in nutshell are that the petitioner_assesseeis a private limited company engaged in the business ofInformation Technologr and Information Technolog, EnabledServices. That search and seizure proceedings under theprovisions of the Act were drawn against a company namedM/s.Sumaya Group, based at Mumbai. In the course of searchand seizure, certain incriminating materials were found relatingto the transactions carried out by M/ s. Sumaya Group withanother firrn irz., M/s.IRIS G1obal Services private Limited andM/s.IRIS Computers Limited, both based at New Delhi. 5. Similar search and seizure proceedings were drawnagainst said M/s.IRIS Group at New Delhi. In the course ofsearch and seizure of M/s.IRIS Group at New Delhi, certaintransactions with the petitioner,s establishment were found fromthe documents seized. Accordingly, survey of the petitioner,sestablishment was also conducted, wherein certain cashtransactions were appe€rred to have been undertaken betweenthe petitioner's establishment and M/s.IRIS Global ServicesPrivate Limited and M/s.IRIS Computers Limited. In thosecircumsta,-qces, r_egpondent No.3 sought germission from 3 PSK,J & NIR,JWp_35029_2023Wp_35029_2023 respondent No. 1 under Section 127 of the Act seeking transferof the case of the petitioner from the jurisdiction of respondentNo.2 to the jurisdiction of respondent No.4 enabling them tohave a coordinated investigation and frna,lization of assessmentIt is this action which has been challenged by the petitionerherein in the instant Writ Petition. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the action of therespondents is per se bad in law for more than one reasonFirstly, the action is without jurisdiction. Secondly, the actionbeing one which has been passed in mechalical and arbitrarymanner without providilg [justifrable]reasons.Thirdly, theaction is violative of the principles of natural [justice.] 7. In support of its contentions, learned Senior Counselargued on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated20.11.2023 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 127 of theAct lacks reasons and without application of mind inasmuch asthey have not gone into the merits of the case requiring transferin the teeth of the provisions under Section t27 of Ihe Act. 8. It was the further contention of the learned SeniorCounsel that the impugned order lacks [jurisdiction ]for thereason that it does not seem to be an agreement between PSK,J & NTR,Jwp_3s029_2C23 7. In support of its contentions, learned Senior Counselargued on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated20.11.2023 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 127 of theAct lacks reasons and without application of mind inasmuch asthey have not gone into the merits of the case requiring transferin the teeth of the provisions under Section t27 of Ihe Act. 8. It was the further contention of the learned SeniorCounsel that the impugned order lacks [jurisdiction ]for thereason that it does not seem to be an agreement between PSK,J & NTR,Jwp_3s029_2C23 respondent Nos. 1 and 3 or at least, the [said ][agreement ][is ][not]reflected in the impugned order, and therefore, the [impugned]order is not sustainable. It was also his [contention ][that ][the]impugned order has been passed on mere asking [for ][transfer ][by]respondent No.3 which again is not [proper, legal ][and ][justihed ][as]it was incumbent upon respondent No.l to have thoroughlyscrutinized the request for transfer by taking the [entire ][pros and]cons into consideration before passing the impugned [order]under Section 727 of the Act. It was also his [contention ][that]there were no valid and [justifrable ]grounds available [with]respondent No.1 to transfer the case from the [jurisdiction ][of]respondent No.2 to the [jurisdiction ]of respondent [No.4,]particularly for the reason that no search and seizureproceedings were conducted at the premises of the petitioner'sestablishment. That at the same time, the impugned [order]seems to have been passed with an impression that search [and]seizure proceedings were conducted at the [premises ]of thepetitioner's establishment. Therefore, the impugned order andthe consequential notice both need to be interfered with. 9. 9. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the onlyreason for the transfer of the petitioner's case from thejurisdiction of respondent No.2 to the jurisdiction of respondent 5 PSK,I & NTR,JWp,35029_2023 No.4 was the so called commercial transactions that thepetitioner had with M/s.lRIS Group. However, there is noallegation or a complaint to the effect that the so calledcommercial transactions between the petitioner and M/ s.IRISGroup are in any malner illegal or contrary to the [provisions ]ofthe Act. In the absence of the same, the order of transfer so [far]as the petitioner's case is concerned was uncalled for and oughtto have been rejected. 10. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Department,while opposing the petition, has drawn the attention of [the]Bench to the observations made in the impugned order, [whereby]it has been specifically stated that it has been [passed so ][as ][to]centraJtze and facilitate coordinated investigation and [to]frnalization of assessment of the different companies [which ][had]inter se link between each other. It was also the contention [of]the learned counsel for the Department that in the [course ][of]survey of the petitioner's establishment, it was [revealed ][that]there were certain cash transactions [between ][ttre ][petitioner ][and]M/s.IRIS Group. 1 1 . Learned counsel for the Department [referred ]to [Section]127 of the Act and stressed on the [fact ]that [there ][are ][no ][pre-]conditions as such envisaged [in ]the [said ][section ][which ][need ][to] PSK,J & NTR,JWp_35029_2023 be met or fulfilled before an order under Section 127 is [passed]by the concerned authority. Hence, it was contended that theaction of the respondents is purely an administrative decisionfor the convenience of the Department in order to have a [proper]investigation ensuring that there is no violation of the [provisions]of the Act by atry person. On the above contentions, learnedcounsel for the Department prayed for dismissal of the WritPetition. 12. Having heard the contentions put forth by either side, andperusal of the record., in the opinion of this Court, it would bemore appropriate if the provision of Section 127 of the Act isperused, and for the sake of convenience, it is being reproducedhereunder. "127. Power to transfer cases:- PSK,J & NTR,JWp_35029_2023 be met or fulfilled before an order under Section 127 is [passed]by the concerned authority. Hence, it was contended that theaction of the respondents is purely an administrative decisionfor the convenience of the Department in order to have a [proper]investigation ensuring that there is no violation of the [provisions]of the Act by atry person. On the above contentions, learnedcounsel for the Department prayed for dismissal of the WritPetition. 12. Having heard the contentions put forth by either side, andperusal of the record., in the opinion of this Court, it would bemore appropriate if the provision of Section 127 of the Act isperused, and for the sake of convenience, it is being reproducedhereunder. "127. Power to transfer cases:- (1) The Commissioner may, after giving the assessee areasonable opportunily of being heard in tJle matter,wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording hisreasons for doing so, transfer any case from any Income-taxOfhcer or Income-tax Ofhcers subordinate to him to anyother Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Offrcers a,lsosubordinate to him and the Board may similarly transferany case from any Income-tax Ofhcer or Income-tax Officersto any other Income-tax Ofhcer or Income tax Officers : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemedto require any such opportunity to be given where thetransfer is from any Income-tax Ofhcer or Income-taxOfficers to any other Income-tax Officer or Income-taxOfficers and the Offices of all such Income-tax Offrcers aresituated in the same city, Iocality or place : Provided further that where any case has been transferredfrom any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Ofhcers to two or ./ PSK,I & NTR,IWp_35029_2023Wp_35029_2023 more Income-tax Officers, the Income-tax Ofhcers to whomthe case is so transferred shall have concurrent jurisdictionthe case is so transferred shall have concurrent jurisdictionover the case and shal1 perform such functions in relationto the said case as the Board or the Commissioner (or anyInspecting Assistant Commissioner authorised by theto the said case as the Board or the Commissioner (or anyInspecting Assistant Commissioner authorised by theCommissioner in this behalf) may, by general or specialorder in writing, speciff, for the distribution and ailocationof the work to be performed.order in writing, speciff, for the distribution and ailocationof the work to be performed. (2) The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) may bemade at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not rendernecessary the re-issue of any notice already issued by theIncome-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers from whom thecase is transferred. Explanation.-In this section and in sections l2l, 123, 124and 125 the word "case", in relation to any person whosename is specihed in any order or direction lssuedthereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respectof any year which may be pending on the date of such orderor direction or which may have been completed on or beforesuch date, and includes also all proceedings under this Actwhich may be commenced after the date of such order ordirection in respect of aIry year.and 125 the word "case", in relation to any person whosename is specihed in any order or direction lssuedthereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respectof any year which may be pending on the date of such orderor direction or which may have been completed on or beforesuch date, and includes also all proceedings under this Actwhich may be commenced after the date of such order ordirection in respect of aIry year. 13. A plain readirg of the aforesaid provision of law by itself 13. A plain readirg of the aforesaid provision of law by itself would clearly indicate that the power to tralsfer a case underthe statute is more of an administrative nature. The powersconferred upon the authorities are vast ald wide. There is nocondition or pre-condition which needs to be adhered to beforean order under Section L27 of the Act is passed. The only riderconferred upon the authorities are vast ald wide. There is nocondition or pre-condition which needs to be adhered to beforean order under Section L27 of the Act is passed. The only riderreflected in the provision is gralting the assessee a reasonableopportunity of being heard, that too wherever it is possible. to doso. The second rider is that while passing an order, theauthority concerned has to record his reasons for doing so. Butfor the aforesaid two riders, there does not seem to be anyopportunity of being heard, that too wherever it is possible. to doso. The second rider is that while passing an order, theauthority concerned has to record his reasons for doing so. Butfor the aforesaid two riders, there does not seem to be any further requirement of law for the authorities to [pass ][an ][order]under Section 127 of the Act. 14. If we look into the pleadings, which have been supportedwith the Writ Petition, themselves would clearly grve anindication that before passing of the impugned order, therespondent authorities did issue notice to the [petitioner ]makingtheir intentions clear so far as the requirement of transferringthe case of the petitioner from the [jurisdiction ]of respondentNo.2 to the jurisdiction of respondent No.4. The [petitioner ]alsohave responded to the notices ald have submitted theirobjections, and thereafter only, the impugned order has beenpassed. This by itself gives a clear picture of the petitioner beinggiven reasonable opportunity of hearing. 15. As regards the second rider of reasons being [provided ]inthe impugrred order, the authorities concerned while [passing ]theimpugrred order, have considered the objections raised by thepetitioner, as would be evident from the contents of paragraphs3, 3.1 and 4. The reason which necessitated the authorities topass the impugned order is to have a coordinated investigation. 16. The instant Writ Petition is the one which has been filedon 22.12.2023, whereas the impugned order under Section 127 PSK,J & NTR,JWp_35029_2023 of the Act was passed about one moth back i.e., on 20.11.2023.The consequential proceedings subsequent to the matter beingtransferred to respondent No.4 also had begun, as would beevidence from the notice dated 3O.1I.2O23 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 ofthe Act. 17. Another crucia-i aspect which needs to be appreciated isthat in the consequentia-l notice under Sub-section (1) of Section142 of the Act, there is a clear elaboration of cash transactionsbetween the petitioner's establishment with M/s.IRIS Group. Tomake the things bad, there is a statement of Accountant namelySri Chennu Venkata Raghavendra, who in the course of survey,has not been able to give proper ald satisfactory explanationand also did not provide cogent material in respect of so calledcommercial transactions done between the petitioner'sestablishment with M/s.IRIS Group. There was also nosuffrcient supporting documentar5r evidence with the petitioner'sestablishment or with their officials at the tirne of survey toestablish tllat the said tralsactions were genuine and they weredone strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. 18. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied uponNoorul Islam Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Othersr, Vijayasanthi Investments [Rrt. ][Ltd.]Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax and [Others2,]Hindusthan M-I Swaco Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner [of]Income-tax, Vadodaraa and Virbhadra Singh [Vs.]Commissioner of Income-tax4. 18. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied uponNoorul Islam Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Othersr, Vijayasanthi Investments [Rrt. ][Ltd.]Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax and [Others2,]Hindusthan M-I Swaco Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner [of]Income-tax, Vadodaraa and Virbhadra Singh [Vs.]Commissioner of Income-tax4. 19 . If we look into the facts and the factual backdrop underwhich the aforesaid [judgments ]were rendered, it would clearlyreflect that those [judgments ]have been [passed ]under entirelydifferent contextual backdrop. In catena of [judgments, ][various]High Courts have held that an order under Section [127 ]of [tl:,e]Act has to bejudged on case to case basis. 20. As has been discussed in the preceding [paragraph, ]a [plain]reading of the impugned order itself would clearly indicate thatthe petitioner was in fact given an opportunity of hearing whichthe petitioner did avail and hnally, while [passing ]the impugnedorder, the authority concerned has mentioned the reasonswhich necessitated them to transfer the case from thejurisdiction of respondent No.2 to the jurisdiction of respondentNo.4. r I20161 s88 rTR 489 (SC) 2 It99L1 ta7 rTR 4Os (AP) 3 12016172 taxmann.com 14 (Gujarat) 4 [2015] 60 taxmann.com 269 (Himachal Pradesh) 11 2lIn Vijayasanthi Investments Put. Ltd.'s case [(supra), ][a] Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held [as ][under:] "From the a-foresaid decisions, it [is ]clear [that, ][in ][the matter]of the transfer of a case under section I27 of [rl:,e ][Act, ]it [is]necessary that the authority which [proposes ]to tralsfer [the]case must, whenever it is [possible ]to do so, [give ][the]assessee a reasonable opportunity of being [heard ]with [a]view to enable him to effectively show cause against [the]proposed transfer. The notice must also propose to [give ]apersonal hearing. It is also necessary to mention in thenotice the reasons for the [proposed ]transfer [so that ][the]assessee could ma-ke an effective [representation ][with]reference to the reasons set out. It is not sufhcient [merely]to say in the notice that the transfer is [proposed ]['to]facilitate detailed and coordinated investigation'. [The]reasons cannot be vague and too [general ]in [nature ][but]must be specific and based on materia-l facts. [It ][is ][again ][not]merely sufficient to record the reasons in [the ][frle ][but ][it ][is]also necessar5r to communicate the [sarne ]to the [affected]party ." 22. So a-lso, in the case of Hindusthan [Swaco. ][Ltd.] (supra), a Division Bench of High Court [of ][Gujrat ][held ][as ][under:] 15. In the said decision thus, [while ][recognizing ][wide]discretionary powers of the competent [Revenue Authorities]to tralsfer assessment cases under section [127 ][of the ][Act ][in]public interest, the Court also recognized a degree [of]prejudice or inconvenience that may be caused to [the]assessee whose assessment may be [lifted from ][his principal]place of business and may be put at the disposal of [an]assessing authority who may be situated at [anottrer ][place]far away from the assessee's [place ]ofbusiness. [The ][power ][of]transfer of cases therefore, would have [to ][be ][exercised ][in]proper cases when sufficient material on [record]jusLify such action. This is, however, not to suggest thattransfer of cases for effective investigation [and coordination]can be resorted to only in cases assesses [who ][are ][subjected]to search operations. This requirement [may arise ][in ][other]circumstalces a-lso. However, [the ][sufhciency ][of ][reasons]would have to bejudged from case to case basis." L2 PSK,J & NTR,JWp_35029_2023 23. Similarly, in the case of Shree Ram Vessel Scrap P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Taxs, a Division Bench of theGuj arat High Court, while dealing with the provision of Section127 of til.e Act, held as under: L2 PSK,J & NTR,JWp_35029_2023 23. Similarly, in the case of Shree Ram Vessel Scrap P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Taxs, a Division Bench of theGuj arat High Court, while dealing with the provision of Section127 of til.e Act, held as under: "2O. Section 127 of the Act, as already noticed, pertains topower to transfer cases. Sub-section( 1) empowers theDirector General, Chief Commissioner or the Commissionerafter giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of beingheard wherever it is possible to do so ald aJter recording hisreasons, transfer arty case from one more or more AssessingOfficers subordinate to him to any other Assessing Ofliceror Assessing Officers also subordinate to him. Like-wise,under sub-section(2) of Section 127 alter following similarprocedural requirements, it is open for the Director General,Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to transfer a casefrom one Assessing Officer to another who is notsubordinate to him in agreement with the authority towhom he may be subordinate. Sub-section(3) of Section 127provides that nothing contained in sub-seclion(1) or sub-section(2) shall be deemed to require giving of arry suchopportunity where the transfer is from any Assessing Offrcerto another and offices of al1 such officers are situated in thesame cit5i, locality or place. Sub-section(4) of Section 127provides that the transfer of a case under sub-seclion(1) orsub-section(2) may be made at arry stage of the proceedingsa-rrd sha-ll not render necessary the re-issuance of any noticealready issued by the Assessing Ofhcer from whom the caseis tralsferred. 21. 21. Exercise of power under sub-section(1) and sub-section(2) of the Act comes with certain proceduralrequirements namely, of granting a reasonable opportunityof being heard in the matter wherever it is possible to do so,of recording of reasons for passing such order and asprovided by the Supreme Court in Ajalta Industries(supra)communicating such reasons also to the assessee. Subjectto fulhllment of such procedural requirements, theauthority under section 127 enjoys considerable discretionwhile exercising the power contained in sub-section(l) orsub-section(2) thereof. Such discretion of-course has to beexercised for achieving the public purpose ald not for anyarbitrary or irrelevant consideraLion. On the other hand, it s I201sl s55 ITR 255 (Guj) PSK,J & NTR,JWP-35029-2023 can also be seen that tralsfer of a [pending ]case [from ][one]Assessing Officer to another outside of a city, [locality ][or]place is likely to cause considerable inconvenience to alassessee. Therefore, even though [an ][assessee ][may ][not ][have]a vested right to insist that his assessment [be ][completed]only at one [place ]or by a [pa,rticular ][Assessing ][Offrcer,]nevertheless, the reasons for [transfer ][must ][be ][weighty]enough to off-set against [such personal inconvenience ][of ][al]assessee. In exercise of [power ]under [section ][127 tJlus ][we]are concerned with larger [public ][interest on ][one ][hald ][and]personal inconvenience on the other. [However, ][as ][long ][as]such powers are exercised [bona ][frde, ][for public ][purpose and]in the interest of Revenue, the [role of ][the ][Court ][to ][dissect]such reasons and to come to [a ][different conclusion would]be extremely limited. It is by [now well ][settled ][that ][judicial]review against the administrative [order ][in ][exercise ][of ][writ]jurisdiction, tJle Court is concerned with the [decision]making process and not [the ][f-rnal ][decision ][itself. ][Unless the]reasons which [prompted ]the [competent ][authority ][to]transfer the case can [be stated ][to ][be ][wholly ][irrelevant ][or]arbitrary, the Court [would not ][interfere ][with ][such ][reasons.]Of-course an order of such [nature ][ca-n ][and ][need ][to ][be]quashed if it is demonstrated that [same ][is ][passed ][either]without [jurisdiction ]or is actuated [by mala fide ][either in fact]or in law. 24. Coming to the facts [of ][the ][present ][case, ][if ][we ][look ][at ][the]impugned order, dated 20.11.2023, [it is ][reflected ][that ][the]reasons have been spelt out in the [said ][order. ][Though ][the]impugrred order may not have elaborately [dealt ][with ][the]reasons, nonetheless, the reasons [specifically ][stand spelt ][out]i.e., in the course of search and [seizure proceedings ][against]M/s.Sumaya Group, certain [documents ][pertaining ][to ][M/s.IRIS]Group were found and that in [the ][consequent ][search ][arrd]seizure proceedings [against ][M/s.IRIS ][Group, ][certain ][hnancial]transactions between the [said ][M/s.IRIS Group ][and ][the]petitioner were found, all of which [reqlrire ][inveJiti€ation'] 14 PSK,J & NTR,IWp_35029_2023Wp_35029_2023 Therefore, considering the fact that all the companies a_relocated at different places like Bombay, Delhi and Hyderabad,for administrative convenience and also for betterment of theproper investigation, Section 127 of the Act was invoked. Later,opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and reasonsfor the transfer of the case from Hyderabad to Bombay have a_lsobeen mentioned. Thus, this Court is of the view that thefor administrative convenience and also for betterment of theproper investigation, Section 127 of the Act was invoked. Later,opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and reasonsfor the transfer of the case from Hyderabad to Bombay have a_lsobeen mentioned. Thus, this Court is of the view that therequirement under statute i.e., Section 127 of tlne Act has beencomplied with while passing the impugned order. 25. From the judiciat pronouncements referred in thepreceding paragraphs, it can be safely culled out that under thescope of judicial review in exercise of its extraordinar5r powersunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court isonly required to see (i) the decision making power, (ii) whetherthe assessee has been granted opportunity of hearing before theorder of transfer was passed and (iii) whether reasons have beengiven while passing the order under Section l2Z of tlrre Act. 26. So far as the decision making process is concerned, theCourt has to see (i) whether the order, which is impugned, hasbeen passed by arr authority who does not otherwise hasauthority to pass an order under Section l2Z of the Act and 15 PSK,J & NTR,JWp_35029_2023 (ii) whether there is any malafide or arbitrariness attributedagainst aly of the offrcials of the Department 27. The case of the petitioner does not fall under [any ]of [the] aforesaid categories. Therefore, now what requires to [be]ascertained is whether the [petitioner ][was ][given ][an ][opportunity]of hearing. From the documents enclosed with [the present Writ]Petition itself would show that the [petitioner ][was indeed ][heard]before passing the impug:ned order. [Finally, what ][needs ][to ][be]looked into is whether the reasons have [also ][been given ][in ][the]order of tralsfer or not. 2a. Paragraph No.4 of the impugned [order read ][with]paragraph Nos.3 and 3.1 would clearly speak of the [reason]which necessitated the authorities to [pass ][the ][impugned ][order ][is]centralized and coordinated investigation. 29. Very recently in the case of Kamal [Nath ][Vs. ][The ][Principal] Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata and [Others6, ][dealing]with the similar issue, the High Court at [Calcutta held ][as ][under.] "22. The [purpose ]of a transfer [order ][under ][Section ][127 ][is]not to subject an assessee to tax liability. [Its ][effect ][is ][only to]subject an assessee to assessment under [another]jurisdictional ofhcer. Therefore, such an order involvesbalalcing of the inconvenience to the [petitioner ][and ][revenue]interests [public interest), which should tilt [towards ][the] 6 W.P.A.No.3868 0f 2022, dated 06.01.2023 latter if there is some nexus derivable from [facts ][and ][not]mere pleas based on conjecture. 23. The principles that emerge from a reading of [the]judgments above are as follows: 29. Very recently in the case of Kamal [Nath ][Vs. ][The ][Principal] Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata and [Others6, ][dealing]with the similar issue, the High Court at [Calcutta held ][as ][under.] "22. The [purpose ]of a transfer [order ][under ][Section ][127 ][is]not to subject an assessee to tax liability. [Its ][effect ][is ][only to]subject an assessee to assessment under [another]jurisdictional ofhcer. Therefore, such an order involvesbalalcing of the inconvenience to the [petitioner ][and ][revenue]interests [public interest), which should tilt [towards ][the] 6 W.P.A.No.3868 0f 2022, dated 06.01.2023 latter if there is some nexus derivable from [facts ][and ][not]mere pleas based on conjecture. 23. The principles that emerge from a reading of [the]judgments above are as follows: A. There is no absolute right to be assessed [in ][a particular]territory. B. In a tralsfer order, the inconvenience of assessees [is]balanced against the right of the revenue to carry [out]effective tax collection (which is public interest). C. The assessee does not possess tJle right to [choose]his/ her assessing authority. D. The scope of [judicial ]revieu'is limited to determining: i) whether t1.e decision making process was [proper, ]which isto ascertain: (a) if the principles of natural [justice ]were followed, and (b) the requirements of Section 727 were firlhlled, ii) whether 'che reasons are not wholly in'eleva::rt/ a-:rbitrary, iii) whether the order is passed without [j ]urisdiction oractuated by mala fide, arrd iv) whether there is arry ne-rrrs of the assessee, whoseassessment is being transferred, with the incriminatrngmaterial a,rd/or persons on whom incrirninaLiog [mater ]iai [has]been found. 24. In view of the above, it is clear ttrat the [present]transfer is based on cogent material that requires furtherinvestigation by the tax authorities. The argument of thepetitioner that they are willing to cooperate in thernvestigation, thereby negating the requirement of thetransfer, is of no relevance as the officer conducting thecoordinated search in my opinion, is best suited toinvestigate and carry out the assessment of the [petitioner. ]Itis to be noted that at the stage of passing an order underSection 127, a.fter considering objections of the petitioner,the authorities are not required to give out the entire case ofthe tax authorities. Even if t.lle additional informationshared vide the alfrdavit-in-cipposition ald compilations arenot considered, this Court frnds the Impugned Order tosatisfy the threshold of an administrative/quasi-administrative order. 25. Thus, it would be incontestable and sufficient toconclude that as long as cogent materials are present, the PSK,J & NTR,IWp_3s029_2023 transfer that has been sought for cannot be held to be malafide or based on extrareous circumstances. [The ][judgements]cited above clarify this [point ]to the hilt. In [my ][view, ][the]administrative/quasi-administrative order [passed ][under]Section 127 of the Act does not [need ]to [give ][a ][detailed]explarration ald a concrete financial nexus, but [is ][required]to bring out certain facts that could indicate that [the ][case]wa-rrants further investigation to be carried [out by ][the ][tax]authorities." 30. For all the aJoresaid reasons, this Court [does ][not find ][that] a strong case is made out by the [petitioner ][for ][interference ][to]the impugned order [passed ]under [Section 127 ][of ][the Act ][by]respondent No.l. Hence, the Writ Petition [is ][liable ][to ][be]dismissed. 31. Accordingly, the Writ Petition [is dismissed. ][There ][shall ][be]no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall [stand ][closed.] sD/- P HH3'$Rtf'Jtls+f(f f'Jtls+f(f //rRUE coPY// \5i SECTION 30. For all the aJoresaid reasons, this Court [does ][not find ][that] a strong case is made out by the [petitioner ][for ][interference ][to]the impugned order [passed ]under [Section 127 ][of ][the Act ][by]respondent No.l. Hence, the Writ Petition [is ][liable ][to ][be]dismissed. 31. Accordingly, the Writ Petition [is dismissed. ][There ][shall ][be]no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall [stand ][closed.] sD/- P HH3'$Rtf'Jtls+f(f f'Jtls+f(f //rRUE coPY// \5i SECTION "r. [11": ][T?1:)' ][I'}nd3i3335 ][: ][lo[lJllf !6.n'"']'o', [-n" ][Principar ][commissioner ];ffi=n+il#*toT".ft ry?l,."rili+q:r#ifi,,,f ff ;:::::;;'ffi u"[i'f #,:til"$6'ii:?irrrvrn?ial:i5ini-*,*0,'*'i1",,*1"3iffi [xili"::ly+*ru;i:U,',ffi ][3ff ][;Xl,'3;,o*no,.",];ffi=n+il#*toT".ft ry?l,."rili+q:r#ifi,,,f ff ;:::::;;'ffi u"[i'f #,:til"$6'ii:?irrrvrn?ial:i5ini-*,*0,'*'i1",,*1"3iffi [xili"::ly+*ru;i:U,',ffi ][3ff ][;Xl,'3;,o*no,.",] :w#ji,l$,""l:s*'f; [:"fr itifu:"["i;rlruHl{'t''usr;srl}ri.,i'sj:,#f }ri.,i'sj:,#f 7r8Hrl :H [H':li ][x ][HJri ][[txl;: ][3 ][3H: ][i#s ][I?""?l ][o ]" [" ]9. Two CD CoPies8Hrl :H [H':li ][x ][HJri ][[txl;: ][3 ][3H: ][i#s ][I?""?l ][o ]" [" ]9. Two CD CoPies IVIBCet Y2.et Y2. t\[,d*] (,\rY{--.- HIGH COURT DATED: 0810112024 oF [rE(]f%'z.?(\^.$+ot!"I [i.i-]9Jcl-.)'ctFt o'i9Q+ ORDER WP.No.35029 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS