Maple Destinations And Dreambuild Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr

$~17 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 5991/2014 & CM 14593/2014 MAPLE DESTINATIONS AND DREAMBUILD PVT LTD..... PetitionerThrough :Mr Kirti Uppal, Sr Advocate with Mr L. M.Aasthana, Mr Siddhant Aasthana andMr Sidharth Chopra versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR..... RespondentsThrough :Ms Suruchi Aggarwal CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R%19.03.2015 This writ petition is directed against the decision of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereby the petitioner’scase has been transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle,Chandigarh under the charge of the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Gurgaon.We have examined the contents of notices dated 01.08.2014 and 26.08.2014 underSection 127(2) (a) of the said Act. From the said notices as also the impugned orderdated 04.09.2014, it is evident that the case of the petitioner was consolidated withthat of Mr Virbhadra Singh and his family members and was centralized atChandigarh under the charge of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurgaon.Mr Virbhadra Singh and other members of his family had challenged the saidconsolidation/transfer order before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by way ofWP(C) 5457/2014 and other connected matters. The said High Court has pronounced judgments in those matters on 18.12.2014 whereby the orders passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax under Section 127 have been set aside on the groundthat the principles of natural justice had not been followed. The operative part of theorder reads as under: “42.In the present case, it cannot be disputed thatrespondent had the jurisdiction to decide the case, butomitted to confront the assessees with the material inhis possession and proceeded to pass impugned orderwhich was founded on grounds at variance from the onein the show-cause notices which however, does notaffecttheab-initio,jurisdictionenjoyedbytherespondent in respect of the proceedings. 43. Therefore, bearing in mind the aforesaid expositionof law, the impugned order passed by the respondentthough is not sustainable, however, it will be open forthe respondent to commence the proceedings afreshwhich needless to say shall be strictly in accordancewith the law. It also needs to be clarified that since wehave not made any observation on the relative merits ofthe case(s), therefore, in the event of fresh show-causenotice(s)beingissued,itshallbeopentothepetitioner(s) to raise all questions of fact and lawincluding those raised before this Court. 44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugnedorder(s) dated 14.07.2014 is quashed and set aside andthe petitions are disposed of as aforesaid, leaving theparties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s),if any, also stands disposed of. The Registry is directedto place a copy of this judgment on the files ofconnected matters.” In view of the fact that the order in respect of Mr Virbhadra Singh has been setaside, the order in respect of the present petitioner will also have to be set aside.Liberty is, however, granted to the respondents to initiate further steps under Section 127 in case the circumstances mentioned in the judgment of the Himachal High Courtwith regard to the fresh proceedings pertaining to Mr Virbhadra Singh arise.It isobvious that if such steps are taken, they shall be in accordance with law. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MARCH 19, 2015SR SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J