Lajpat Rai Jindal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH CWP No. 7970 of 2011Date of Decision: 05.05.2011 Lajpat Rai Jindal ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present :Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate,for the petitioner. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, A.C.J.(Oral) This petition seeks quashing of order dated 06.04.2011under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'theAct') transferring the assessment of the petitioner from Sangrur toPatiala in the interest of revenue and co-ordinated investigation to becentralized with one Assessing Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been regularlyassessed at Sangrur. After the search was conducted on his premiseson 23.09.2010, a show cause notice dated 09.02.2011 was issued tothe petitioner, proposing change of jurisdiction from the Income TaxOfficer, Sangrur to ACIT, Patiala. The petitioner filed reply and afterconsidering the same, the impugned order has been passed. According to the writ petitioner, transfer of assessment isillegal as no valid reason has been given. Centralization of assessmentfor co-ordinated investigation can in no circumstance be reason forsuch transfer. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court inRajesh Mahajan and others V. Commissioner of IncomeTax(2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 428 andDeep Malhotra and othersV.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and others,CWP No.17197 of 2008 decided on 4.8.2009. We are unable to accept the submissions. Power under Section 127 of the Act can be exercised on avalid reason to be recorded after due opportunity to the assessee. Inthe present case, show cause notice was issued and reasons wererecorded. Once that has been done, in the absence of arbitrariness ormalafides, the said order cannot be held to be illegal. There is noprinciple on which exercise of power on the ground that centralizationassessment was required for coordinated investigation, particularly incase of a search can be excluded. In search cases, bonafide opinionfor need for transfer to centralize the assessment to avoid conflictingorders, and for co-ordinate investigation can certainly be valid. Theobservations made in the judgment in Rajesh Mahajan by learnedSingle Judge are on the facts of that case and, in any case, cannot bindthe Division Bench. The judgment in Deep Malhotra does not holdthat co-ordinate investigation can never be a ground for transfer. Thus, there is no merit in this petition and the same isdismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 05.05.2011'ravinder' (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE JUDGE