Sumandeep Vidyapith Throu Registrar Chandramani Bhagwan More v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11623 of 2020 ================================================================SUMANDEEP VIDYAPITH THROU REGISTRAR CHANDRAMANIBHAGWAN MORE VersusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ================================================================ Appearance:MR DARSHAN R PATEL for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MR. M.R.BHATT, SR.ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORADate : 22/01/2021ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.By this writ-application under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for thefollowing reliefs : “(A)Issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ of mandamusand/or any other writ, direction or order to quash and setaside the impugned notices dated 16.07.2020 and29.07.2020 annexed hereto at Annexure-A and Annexure-Crespectively along with impugned consequential order underSection 127(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated17.08.2020 at Annexure-F; (B)Pending admission, hearing and disposal of thispetition, ad-interim relief be granted and the Respondent beordered to restrain from enforcing compliance of the impugned notices dated 16.07.2020 and 29.07.2020annexed hereto at Annexure-A and Annexure-C respectivelyalong with consequential order under Section 127(2)(a) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 17.08.2020 at Annexure-F; (C)Award the costs of this petition. (D)Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'bleCourt deems fit.” 2.The subject matter of challenge in the present litigation isto the order dated 17[th] August 2020 of transfer of theproceedings under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short, 'the Act 1961') from the ACIT (E), Circle-2,Ahmedabad, to the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara. 3.The show-cause notice dated 16[th] July 2020, calling uponthe writ-applicant to show-cause as to why the proceedingsshould not be transferred under Section 127(2) of the Act readsthus : “To, M/s.Sumandeep VidyapeethPiparia, Waghodia, Vadodara 391760. Sir, Sub: Show Cause notice along with Opportunity letter in respect of proceedings U/s 127(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and Centralization of case in connection with Search conducted in M/s Sumandeep Group of Baroda – reg.respect of proceedings U/s 127(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and Centralization of case in connection with Search conducted in M/s Sumandeep Group of Baroda – reg. 2.In connection with the above, it is to inform you thatyour case is required to be centralized for completingassessment proceedings U/s. 153A/153C of the I.T. Act,1961 in connection with the search operation conducted inthe case of M/s Sumandeep Group of Baroda. It is thereforeproposed to transfer the jurisdiction over your case from theACIT(E), Cir-2, Ahmedabad to the DCIT, Central Circle-1,Vadodara as well as transfer of your PAN to the DCIT,Central Circle-1, Vadodara. 3.As per ITBA database, your address is at Waghodia,Vadodara-391760, and ITBA database shows that theassessee is being assessed with ACIT(E), Circle-2,Ahmedabad under the administrative control ofCommissioner of Income Tax (E}, Ahmedabad. 2.In connection with the above, it is to inform you thatyour case is required to be centralized for completingassessment proceedings U/s. 153A/153C of the I.T. Act,1961 in connection with the search operation conducted inthe case of M/s Sumandeep Group of Baroda. It is thereforeproposed to transfer the jurisdiction over your case from theACIT(E), Cir-2, Ahmedabad to the DCIT, Central Circle-1,Vadodara as well as transfer of your PAN to the DCIT,Central Circle-1, Vadodara. 3.As per ITBA database, your address is at Waghodia,Vadodara-391760, and ITBA database shows that theassessee is being assessed with ACIT(E), Circle-2,Ahmedabad under the administrative control ofCommissioner of Income Tax (E}, Ahmedabad. 4.In light of the above facts, it is to inform you thatproceedings to transfer your PAN and passing Order U/s127(2) of the Act are under progress in your case. In thisconnection, you are given opportunity of being heard in thismatter and requested to either submit your reply throughemail or speed post or attend before the undersigned inperson or through an Authorised Representative on28/07/2020 at 03:30 P.M. in this office to present yourcase. In case of non-compliance, it will be presumed thatyou have no objection to transfer your PAN to the DCIT,Central Circle-1, Vadodara and to pass Order U/s 127(2) ofthe I.T. Act in your case and the matter will be decided onmerits and on the basis of documents available on record. (RITESH PARMAR)Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad” 4.The Corrigendum to the aforesaid dated 29[th] July 2020reads thus : “To,The Principal Officer,M/s.Sumandeep VidyapeethPiparia, Waghodia, Vadodara 391760. Sir, Sub: Opportunity letter alongwith disposal of Objection raised in response to this office letter dated 21/07/2020 in respect of Centralization of case proceedings U/s 127(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, Waghodiya, Vadodara - reg, Kindly refer to the above. 2.In connection with the above, it is regret to state thatin para-1 of this office letter dated 16.07.2020 bearingNo.CIT(E)/Ahd/Sumandeep Gr/127(2)/Order/2020-21 andDIN No.ITBA/COM/S/91/2020-21/1027547982(1) dated21/07/2020, there is an inadvertent mistake in writingwords “....completing assessment proceedings u/s153A/153C of the I.T. Act 1961 in connection with thesearch operation conducted in the case of M/s SumandeepGroup of Baroda.” It is accordingly requested to kindlyignore the contents of this para. 3.Your case is proposed to be centralized with othergroup cases for co-ordinated investigation and as perprovisions of section 127(2)(a) of the I.T. Act, opportunity ofbeing heard in this matter and is hereby provided to you. Itis requested to either submit your reply through email orspeed post or attend before the undersigned in person orthrough an Authorised Representative on 06/08/2020 at03:30 P.M. in this office to present your case. In case of non-compliance, it will be presumed that you have no objectionto transfer your PAN to the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodaraand to pass Order U/s 127(2) of the I.T. Act in your caseand the matter will be decided on merits and on the basis ofdocuments available on record. (RITESH PARMAR)Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad” 5.The writ-applicant lodged his objections to the abovereferred show-cause notice vide communication dated 6[th] August2020, essentially raising the following issues : (i)Documents issued without Document Identification Number (DIN) are invalid. (ii)Provisions of Section 153A/153C are not applicable in the case on hand.in the case on hand. (iii)Absence of valid reason for Centralization. (iv)Inter-city transfer of cases during Covid-19 pandemicis not permitted by CBDT.is not permitted by CBDT. (v)Being a Trust case, it should be assessed in the specialized charge of 'Exemptions'.specialized charge of 'Exemptions'. (RITESH PARMAR)Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad” 5.The writ-applicant lodged his objections to the abovereferred show-cause notice vide communication dated 6[th] August2020, essentially raising the following issues : (i)Documents issued without Document Identification Number (DIN) are invalid. (ii)Provisions of Section 153A/153C are not applicable in the case on hand.in the case on hand. (iii)Absence of valid reason for Centralization. (iv)Inter-city transfer of cases during Covid-19 pandemicis not permitted by CBDT.is not permitted by CBDT. (v)Being a Trust case, it should be assessed in the specialized charge of 'Exemptions'.specialized charge of 'Exemptions'. (vi)This High Court has stayed the scrutiny assessmentsfor the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18.for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. (vii)Inconvenience and hardship would be caused on shifting from Ahmedabad to Vadodara.shifting from Ahmedabad to Vadodara. 6.The aforesaid objections came to be overruled by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, videcommunication dated 14[th] August 2020. 7.Ultimately, the final order under Section 127(2)(a) of theAct came to be passed dated 17[th] August 2020. The order readsthus : “ORDER UNDER SECTION 127(2)(a) OF THE INCOME TAXACT, 1961 In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (2) ofSection 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and all otherpowers enabling me in this behalf, I, the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad, hereby transfer thecase along with its PAN, the particulars whereof arementioned in Column No. 4 & 5 of the schedule appendedhereunder, from the Assessing Officer mentioned at ColumnNo. 4 to the Assessing Officer mentioned at Column No.4 tothe Assessing Officer mentioned at Column No.5 thereof. C/SCA/11623/2020 ORDER Sr. Name of the PANFrom AssessingTo Assessing No.AssesseeOfficerOfficer123451M/s SumandeepAAATK4485H ACIT(E), Circle-DCIT, CentralVidyapeeth2, Ahmedabad Circle-1, [A.O. Code: Vadodara DLC-CA-209-1][A.O. Code: DLC-CC-97-1] 2.This order shall take effect from 17/08/2020. 3.The assessee has opposed the transfer of this casebut the submissions made by it were duly considered andrejected. The reasons have been separately communicatedvide this office letter No.CIT(E)/Ahd/SumandeepGr/127(2)/2020-21 /762 dated 14.08.2020. 4.This order is generated without DocumentIdentification No. (DIN) as the functionality of sending letter/order to the assesses U/s 127(2)(a) is not available in theITBA system till date. (RITESH PARMAR)Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad” 8.In view of the aforesaid, the writ-applicant is here beforethis Court with the present writ-application. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE WRIT-APPLICANT : 9.Mr.Darshan Patel, the learned counsel appearing for thewrit-applicant, has vehemently submitted that the impugned order is erroneous in law as the same is based on non-existentfacts and incorrect reasons. He would submit that the groundsassigned by the department for transfer of the case are vague. Itis submitted that although the reason of coordinatedinvestigation has been assigned by the department to justifytransfer, yet the same does not specifically find place or there isno specific reference of the same in the show-cause notice. 10.Mr.Patel, in support of his aforesaid submission, hasplaced reliance on the following decisions : 1. Ajantha Industries vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes,(1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC);(1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC); 2. Ramswaroop vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Nagpur,(2016) 70 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay);(2016) 70 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay); 3. Anuben Lalabhai Bharwad vs. Principal Commissioner ofIncome-tax-3, (2016) 72 taxmann.com 178 (Gujarat);Income-tax-3, (2016) 72 taxmann.com 178 (Gujarat); 10.Mr.Patel, in support of his aforesaid submission, hasplaced reliance on the following decisions : 1. Ajantha Industries vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes,(1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC);(1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC); 2. Ramswaroop vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Nagpur,(2016) 70 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay);(2016) 70 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay); 3. Anuben Lalabhai Bharwad vs. Principal Commissioner ofIncome-tax-3, (2016) 72 taxmann.com 178 (Gujarat);Income-tax-3, (2016) 72 taxmann.com 178 (Gujarat); 4. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. RohtasProject Ltd., (2018) 100 taxmann.com 384 (SC).Project Ltd., (2018) 100 taxmann.com 384 (SC). 11.In such circumstances referred to above, Mr.Patel praysthat there being merit in his writ-application, the same beallowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set-aside. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE : 12.On the other hand, this writ-application has beenvehemently opposed by Mr.M.R.Bhatt, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Mrs.Mauna Bhatt, the learned seniorstanding counsel appearing for the Revenue. Mr.Bhatt wouldsubmit that under the communication dated 29[th] July 2020, aCorrigendum was issued clarifying that though there was nosearch proceedings, the case was proposed to be centralized withthe other group cases for coordinated investigation as per theprovisions of Section 127(2)(a) of the Act. An opportunity ofhearing was granted. All the objections raised by the writ-applicant came to be considered under the communication dated14[th] August 2020. The following objections of the writ-applicanthave been seriatim considered in the order disposing of theobjections : (a)Absence of document identification number (DIN) : The aforesaid aspect has been clarified stating that urgentand important communication cannot be withheld onaccount of technical problems. (b)Absence of search proceedings : The judgment of this Court rendered in the case ofHindustan M.I. Swaco Limited (2016) 72 taxmann.com 14(Guj.) (Para 15 of the judgment) has been referred to holdthat the transfer of cases for effective investigation andcoordination can be resorted to even in the absence ofsearch proceedings. The provisions of Sections 153A/153Crespectively of the Act are not applicable in the case onhand. (c)Hardship due to intercity transfer : The writ-applicant is situated at Vadodara. The writ-applicant's assessment was initially framed by theExemption Circle at Ahmedabad and now sought to betransferred to the Central Circle, Vadodara. Therefore, noquestion of hardship. (d)Assessment in specialized charge : The writ-applicant contended that since it was a charitabletrust, it was required to be assessed by a specializedjurisdiction, viz. Exemption. This contention was rejectedon the ground that it cannot be said that the officers ofexemption charge are only capable of undertaking suchassessment. It is also incorrect to say that the officers ofthe central charge where the case was being proposed fortransfer are not well versed with the provisions relating tothe charitable trusts. It is also recorded that in view of theFaceless Assessment Scheme, 2019, the scrutinyassessments are now to be done either by the Regional E-Assessment Centre or by the central charge and now noassessment could be made by the ACIT (Exemption). 13.In such circumstances referred to above, Mr.Bhatt praysthat there being no merit in this writ-application, the same maybe rejected. ANALYSIS : 14.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the partiesand having gone through the materials on record, the onlyquestion that falls for our consideration is, whether the authority concerned committed an error in passing the order of transferunder Section 127 of the Act. 15.Section 124 of the Act pertains to the jurisdiction of theAssessing Officer. Sub-section (1) of Section 124 reads as under : 13.In such circumstances referred to above, Mr.Bhatt praysthat there being no merit in this writ-application, the same maybe rejected. ANALYSIS : 14.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the partiesand having gone through the materials on record, the onlyquestion that falls for our consideration is, whether the authority concerned committed an error in passing the order of transferunder Section 127 of the Act. 15.Section 124 of the Act pertains to the jurisdiction of theAssessing Officer. Sub-section (1) of Section 124 reads as under : “124(1)Where by virtue of any direction or order issuedunder sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, theAssessing Officer has been vested with jurisdiction over anyarea, within the limits of such area, he shall havejurisdiction-- (a)in respect of any person carrying on a business orprofession, if the place at which he carries on his businessor profession is situate within the area, or where hisbusiness or profession is carried on in more places than one,if the principal place of his business or profession is situatewithin the area, and (b)in respect of any other person residing within thearea.” 16.Section 127 of the Act pertains to the power to transfercases. It reads as under : “127. (1)The Principal Director General or DirectorGeneral or Principal Chief Commissioner or ChiefCommissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity ofbeing heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so,and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer anycase from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him(whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any otherAssessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with orwithout concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2)Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers fromwhom the case is to be transferred and the AssessingOfficer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to betransferred are not subordinate to the same PrincipalDirector General or Director General or Principal ChiefCommissioner or Chief Commissioner or PrincipalCommissioner or Commissioner,— (a)where the Principal Directors General or DirectorsGeneral or Principal Chief Commissioners or ChiefCommissionersorPrincipalCommissionersorCommissioners to whom such Assessing Officers aresubordinate are in agreement, then the Principal DirectorGeneral or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioneror Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner orCommissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to betransferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonableopportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it ispossible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doingso, pass the order; (b)where the Principal Directors General or DirectorsGeneral or Principal Chief Commissioners or ChiefCommissionersorPrincipalCommissionersorCommissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the ordertransferring the case may, similarly, be passed by theBoard or any such Principal Director General or DirectorGeneral or Principal Chief Commissioner or ChiefCommissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioneras the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette,authorise in this behalf. (3)Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall bedeemed to require any such opportunity to be given wherethe transfer is from any Assessing Officer or AssessingOfficers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) toany other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whetherwith or without concurrent jurisdiction) and the offices of allsuch officers are situated in the same city, locality or place. (3)Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall bedeemed to require any such opportunity to be given wherethe transfer is from any Assessing Officer or AssessingOfficers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) toany other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whetherwith or without concurrent jurisdiction) and the offices of allsuch officers are situated in the same city, locality or place. (4)The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings,and shall not render necessary the reissue of any noticealready issued by the Assessing Officer or AssessingOfficers from whom the case is transferred. Explanation.—In section 120 and this section, the word"case", in relation to any person whose name is specified inany order or direction issued thereunder, means allproceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or whichmay have been completed on or before such date, andincludes also all proceedings under this Act which may becommenced after the date of such order or direction inrespect of any year.” 17.Section 124(1) of the Act lays down the jurisdiction of theAssessing Officer, whereas under sub-section (1) of Section 127of the Act, it is open to the concerned authority to transfer anycase of an assessee from one Assessing Officer subordinate tohim to any other Assessing Officer or Officers also subordinate tohim. This power is hedged by two requirements which are thatsuch order can be passed only after giving the assessee areasonable opportunity of being heard and recording his reasonsfor doing so, wherever possible. As per sub-section (3) of Section127 however, the opportunity of hearing would not be necessarywhere the transfer of a case is from an Assessing Officer toanother Assessing Officer and such officers are situated in thesame city, locality or place. Under clause (a) of sub-section (2) ofSection 127, where the Assessing Officer or the officers fromwhom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer orthe officers to whom the case is to be transferred are notsubordinate to the same Principal Directors General, DirectorGeneral, Principal Chief Commissioners, Chief Commissioners orPrincipal Commissioners or Commissioners, the transfer of casewould be only when such authorities to whom the AssessingOfficers concerned are subordinate are in agreement. In such acase, the Principal Director General, Director General, PrincipalChief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Commissionerfrom whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred would pass an order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity ofbeing heard and after recording the reasons wherever it ispossible. an order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity ofbeing heard and after recording the reasons wherever it ispossible. 18.Section 127 of the Act is founded on three principles. First,is the requirement of transferring the assessment in appropriatecases which would have the element of public interest. Secondly,the assessee cannot choose his Assessing Officer. Section 124 ofthe Act which lays down the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officersensures proper administration of assessments givingconsistency, transparency and predictability on the question ofwhich Assessing Officer would deal with which assessments.Nevertheless, an assessee cannot choose his Assessing Officer.At the same time, it is also recognised that transferring theassessment of an assessee at a far away place would lead tohardship and cause prejudice. It is in this context that thesection requires giving of a reasonable opportunity of beingheard to the assessee and to record reasons for transferring theassessment. The Courts have also recognised that transferringan assessment of an assessee at a far away distance wouldcertainly cause inconvenience and prejudice. It is in this respectthat under sub-section (3) of Section 127, the requirement ofhearing and recording of reasons for transferring an assessmentis not made applicable when the assessment is being transferredfrom one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer, bothbeing situated in the same city, locality or place. The thirdimportant element of Section 127 is when an assessment isbeing transferred from one Assessing Officer to anotherAssessing Officer, both of whom are not subordinate to the samehead, the same could be done only with the agreement of the respective heads and if there is no such agreement, only by theBoard or the authority that the Board may authorise in thisbehalf, by issuing notification in the official Gazette. This lastrequirement would ensure that there is no discordance betweenthe heads of the two Assessing Officers from where theassessment is transferred to where it is being transferred and incase there is a disagreement, such powers can be exercised onlyby the Board or an officer so authorised by the Board. While weare on the requirement of agreement between the twoauthorities, as referred to in clause(a) of sub-section (2) ofSection 127, we may also notice that upon such agreement beingachieved, it is the authority from whose jurisdiction the case isto be transferred, has to grant a reasonable opportunity of beingheard to the assessee and then pass an order recording hisreasons. This requirement would have two significant elements.One is that the authority under whose jurisdiction theassessment is being transferred has merely to show hisagreement or disagreement, as the case may be. It is theauthority from whose jurisdiction the case is being transferred,in addition to agreeing to transfer would have to grant anopportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a reasonedorder. The second element is that his agreement for transfer ofthe case cannot be equated with the decision to transfer. Thedecision can be reached only after hearing the assessee. He canform a final opinion that the case is to be transferred only afterhearing the assessee, failing which, his decision would be ex-parte. Without the representation or involvement of the assessee,the requirement of hearing would then be rendered into anempty formality. [See Genus Electrotech Ltd. vs. Union of Indiaand Others, (2018) 402 ITR 221 (Guj.)] 19.We have already noted the reasons for the transfer ofassessment. We may refer to a decision rendered by a CoordinateBench of this Court in the case of Shree Ram Vessel Scrap P.Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in (2013) 355 ITR255 (Guj), wherein this Court had upheld the stance of theRevenue that for effective and coordinative investigation, ifotherwise established on the record, the same can be a goodground for transfer of a case. It was observed as under : “20. 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 and after recordinghis reasons, transfer any case from one more or moreAssessing Officers subordinate to him to any otherAssessing Officer or Assessing Officers also subordinate tohim. Likewise, under sub-section (2) of Section 127 afterfollowing similar procedural requirements, it is open for theDirector General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner totransfer a case from one Assessing Officer to another who isnot subordinate to him in agreement with the authority towhom he may be subordinate. Sub-section (3) of Section 127provides that nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require giving of any suchopportunity where the transfer is from any Assessing Officerto another and offices of all such officers are situated in thesame city, locality or place. Sub-section (4) of Section 127provides that the transfer of a case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedingsand shall not render necessary the re-issuance of any noticealready issued by the Assessing Officer from whom the caseis transferred. 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 Ajanta Industries (supra)communicating such reasons also to the assessee. Subjectto fulfillment of such procedural requirements, the authorityunder Section 127 enjoys considerable discretion whileexercising the power contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) thereof. Such discretion of course has to beexercised for achieving the public purpose and not for anyarbitrary or irrelevant consideration. On the other hand, itcan also be seen that transfer of a pending case from oneAssessing Officer to another outside of a city, locality orplace is likely to cause considerable inconvenience to anassessee. Therefore, even though an assessee may not havea vested right to insist that his assessment be completedonly at one place or by a particular Assessing Officer,nevertheless, the reasons for transfer must be weightyenough to offset against such personal inconvenience of anassessee. In exercise of power under Section 127 thus weare concerned with larger public interest on one hand andpersonal inconvenience on the other. However, as long assuch powers are exercised bona fide, for public purpose and in the interest of Revenue, the role of the Court to dissectsuch reasons and to come to a different conclusion would beextremely limited. It is by now well settled that judicialreview against the administrative order in exercise of writjurisdiction, the Court is concerned with the decision makingprocess and not the final decision itself. Unless the reasonswhich prompted the competent authority to transfer the casecan be stated to be wholly irrelevant or arbitrary, the Courtwould not interfere with such reasons. Of course an order ofsuch nature can and need to be quashed if it isdemonstrated that same is passed either withoutjurisdiction or is actuated by mala fide either in fact or inlaw.” in the interest of Revenue, the role of the Court to dissectsuch reasons and to come to a different conclusion would beextremely limited. It is by now well settled that judicialreview against the administrative order in exercise of writjurisdiction, the Court is concerned with the decision makingprocess and not the final decision itself. Unless the reasonswhich prompted the competent authority to transfer the casecan be stated to be wholly irrelevant or arbitrary, the Courtwould not interfere with such reasons. Of course an order ofsuch nature can and need to be quashed if it isdemonstrated that same is passed either withoutjurisdiction or is actuated by mala fide either in fact or inlaw.” 20.In the case of Aamby Valley Ltd. vs. Commissioner ofIncome-tax, reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 15 (Bombay), aDivision Bench of the Bombay High Court held as under : “8. We have considered the submissions. The power totransfer cases under Section 127 of the Act is to beundoubtedly exercised after following the principles ofnatural justice. However, the discretion of the authority totransfer a case has to be examined on the touchstone of thesame not being arbitrary and/or perverse and/or mala fide.If there are reasons in the impugned order which indicatesdue application of mind to reach a view to transfer a casefrom one jurisdiction to another, then this Court will notinterfere with the discretion of the administrative authoritywho transfers the case. This discretion is vested by the Act in high ranking officers viz. Commissioner of Income Taxand the necessity to transfer a case from the jurisdiction ofone officer to another officer for better administration of theAct could be diverse and impossible to enumerate. It is forthe above reason that Section 127 of the Act has not limitedthe exercise of jurisdiction by specifying any circumstancesbefore the authority can exercise his powers to transfer thecase. One more fact which cannot be lost sight of is that anassessee cannot choose his Assessing Officer and,therefore, if the transfer order does indicate some validreasons to justify the transfer and such reasons are neitherperverse or arbitrary or mala fide this Court would notinterfere with the reasonable exercise of discretion.” 21.The Delhi High Court, in the case of Vishal Kumar vs.Commissioner of Income, reported in (2014) 44 taxmann.com180 (Delhi), held as under : “10. The assessee also has the opportunity to present hiscase and be subject to a regular assessment, in front of theAssessing Officer to whom jurisdiction has been transferred.No prejudice is caused by the mere fact of a Section 127order, such that detailed reasons and specific grounds arerequired to be provided, as the petitioner today argues.Equally, the show-cause notice dated 9.10.2013 granted thepetitioner in this case an opportunity of being heard. No oralrepresentation was made by the petitioner on that date, norwas any request for another date made to theCommissioner. Written objections, however, were preferred, which were considered and disposed off by the impugnednotice in this case. The argument, thus, that no chance toeffectively represent the case was provided has no merit.” 22.In Pannalal Binraj vs. Union of India, reported in (1957) 31ITR 565, the Supreme Court observed while upholding the powerof transfer that, inconvenience to the assessee or likelihood ofmisuse of the provision could not be a ground to declare the saidprovision to be void, but if there was abuse of the power,appropriate remedy could be taken. The relevant observationsreads thus : which were considered and disposed off by the impugnednotice in this case. The argument, thus, that no chance toeffectively represent the case was provided has no merit.” 22.In Pannalal Binraj vs. Union of India, reported in (1957) 31ITR 565, the Supreme Court observed while upholding the powerof transfer that, inconvenience to the assessee or likelihood ofmisuse of the provision could not be a ground to declare the saidprovision to be void, but if there was abuse of the power,appropriate remedy could be taken. The relevant observationsreads thus : “It follows, therefore, that Section 5(7A) of the Act is notviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution and also does notimpose any unreasonable restriction on the fundamentalright to carry on trade or business enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. If there is any abuse of power it canbe remedied by appropriate action either under Article 226or under Article 32 of the Constitution and what can bestruck down is not the provision contained in Section 5(7A)of the Act but the order passed thereunder which may bemala fide or violative of these fundamental rights. Thischallenge of the vires of Section 5(7A) of the Act, therefore,fails. 23.It appears from the materials on record that the mainpurpose of transfer on the ground of centralization of cases is toinvestigate the dubious transactions of the writ-applicant withvarious related entities during the relevant period. At this stage, we may refer to the reasons assigned by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Exemption) for centralization while disposing of theobjections raised by the writ-applicant. “Vide your above referred letters, you have brought toattention the provisions of section 127(1) which contain aclear mandate to record valid and justifiable reasons fortransfer of cases. In this regard, you have relied uponvarious judicial pronouncements including the judgment ofApex Court in the case of PCIT (Central) vs. Rohtas ProjectLimited (100 Taxman 384). The Judgments cited by you arenot discussed in this letter as none of these judgments havebeen contravened. There are valid and justifiable reasons asper I.T. Act for transfer of your case which is mentioned insubsequent Para Nos. 4.1 to 4.7. Further, following theprinciples of natural justice, you were provided opportunityof being heard before finalization of proceedings U/s 127(2)(a) of the Act. 4.1According to you, the reason of co-ordinatedinvestigation in your case is vague. It is claimed that youwere not carrying out any business activities and thetrustees are not connected with any group (including anySumandeep Group} as they are not involved in thefunctioning of Sumandeep University. For countering yourclaim, it would be appropriate to discuss the background ofyour case. It is pertinent to mention that information wasreceived from the Office of the Director in-charge and SpecialDirector, ACB Gujarat, Ahmedabad that a raid by Anti-Corruption Bureau in the case of Sumandeep Vidhyapith was carried out on 27/02/2017. It was also intimated thattwo agents of Dr.Mansukhbhai Shah, the trustee andpresident of Sumandeep Vidhyapith Trust were caught redhanded accepting the bribe of Rs.20 lakh in cash from theparent of a final year medical student. Accordingly, theACB, Gujarat has communicated to this office and the officeof the Pr.CCIT(Guj), Ahmedabad for consideration to cancelthe registration of the K.M.Shah Trust, ManagingSumandeep Vidhyapith (deemed University). was carried out on 27/02/2017. It was also intimated thattwo agents of Dr.Mansukhbhai Shah, the trustee andpresident of Sumandeep Vidhyapith Trust were caught redhanded accepting the bribe of Rs.20 lakh in cash from theparent of a final year medical student. Accordingly, theACB, Gujarat has communicated to this office and the officeof the Pr.CCIT(Guj), Ahmedabad for consideration to cancelthe registration of the K.M.Shah Trust, ManagingSumandeep Vidhyapith (deemed University). 4.2.It was also highlighted by the office of the Director in-charge and Special Director, ACB Gujarat, Ahmedabad thatduring the course of search action, certain incriminatingrecords i.e. possession of FDRs of Rs.43,63,70,961/- andblank signed cheques of Rs.101,57,42,360/- and also otherdocuments were found. It was also intimated that duringpost search investigation, it was further found that ShriMansukh Shah and his family members have earned profitsfrom stock market by trading in penny stocks, Such taxexempt capital gains amounted to Rs.27.57 crores from F.Y.2012-13 to F.Y. 2015-16. In view of above, it was referred tothe Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department atVadodara for necessary investigation. 4.3.Necessary enquiry was carried out by theInvestigation Wing of Income Tax Department at Vadodaraon the Incriminating materials found (during the course ofsearch carried out by ACB, Gujarat), The DDIT (Inv,),Vadodara reported that in respect of issue of Long TermCapital Gains shown by Shri Mansukhbhai Shah, the trustee and President of Sumandeep Vidhyapith and hisfamily members in various years was examined and foundthat the individuals of the assessee group had made thesham transactions. The unaccounted money in the guise ofexempted long term capital gain had been credited in thebooks of accounts. He further informed that the total bogusLTCG of Rs 42.16 crore (shown in the cases of variousindividual cases from F.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17) wassuggested to be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.4It is pertinent to note that the assessee had challengedthe action of ACB, Gujarat before the appellate authoritiesand the issue was finally settled against the assessee bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court. While deciding the criminal caseregistered by ACB, Gujarat, vide Prevention of CorruptionAct against the Trustees of Sumandeep Vidhyapeeth,Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Criminal Appeal No.989 of2018, 27/04/2020 has allowed the appeal of the GujaratState. Relevant paras of said judgment are extracted asunder : “51. In the present case, on a prima-facie evaluationof the statements of the Gaurav D. Mehta (the Vice-Chancellor); Mr.Pragneshkumar Rameshbhai Trivedi(account officer of Sumandeep Vidhyapith University)and other witnesses it appears that the presentrespondent was the final authority with regard to thegrant of admission, collection of fees and donationamount. 52.The charge sheet specifically discloses that therespondent allegedly was collecting certain extraamount over the prescribed fees on the pretext ofallowing the students to fill up their examinationforms. Therefore, paying the respondent the allegedamount was a condition precedent before filling up theforms, to appear for the examinations. Specifically, inthe complaint, it was alleged that the respondent haddemanded an amount of Rupees Twenty Lakhs to bepaid to the co-accused Bharat Savant, failing whichthe daughter of the complainant would not have beenpermitted to appear in the examination. In our opinion,the fact that there were a large number of chequeswhich were found during the raid is more thansufficient to establish a grave suspicion as to thecommission of the alleged offence. 53.The respondent has vehemently stressed uponthe fact that he is admittedly a trustee of the“Sumandeep Charitable Trust” and has no connectionwith the “Sumandeep University”. But, it ought to benoted that the courts below have failed to analyze theconnection between the trust and the University, aswell as the relationship of the respondent with theuniversity. Prima facie, a grave suspicion is made outthat the respondent was rendering his service bydealing with the students and the examination aspectof the University. But a detailed appreciation ofevidence is called for before one can reach a conclusion as to the exact position of the respondentvis-a-vis the University.” From above, it is clearly evident that even the Apex Courthas decided the issue against the assessee and hashighlighted the nexus of various persons intrinsically linkedwith the activities of the Trust. Such observation of ApexCourt itself calls for co-ordinated investigation in this case.In view of above, centralization of assessee trust is requiredto be made for coordinated investigation. 4.5.From the above, it is prima facie evident thattransactions of assessee trust and trustees including ShriMansukhbhai Shah are interlinked (with SumandeepVidhyapeeth). Such transactions can be analysed andinvestigated by examining the documents and through bankand other enquiries together and not separately at differentplaces. Therefore, a co-ordinated investigation is necessaryin this case. The word 'co-ordinated' means harmonious inaction. All the cases should be considered together at oneplace so that harmonious investigation be undertaken toarrive at just assessment. The words 'co-ordinatedinvestigation' of the case are therefore, not vague andcentralization of the cases with one assessing officer isessential for better co-ordinated investigation. 4.6.Further, it is not out of place to mention here that thepurpose of centralization of cases is to investigate thetransactions among the various related entities during therelevant period and to assess income of all the persons concerned for the assessment years in question. Thepurpose of a Section 127 transfer is not to subject theconcerned assessees to any tax liability, or even undergoany other obligation (onerous or otherwise), but rather, onlyto direct that the regular assessment (as is carried out in theusual course of events) will be conducted by an AO otherthan the jurisdictional AO in order to ensure coordinatedinvestigation only. Indeed, the very purpose of the Section127 order in this case is to ensure that an orderly andcoordinated investigation takes place while conducting theassessment of the various (and possibly related) entitiesinvolved. Provisions of Section 127 are only for necessitatingthe transfer of the assessee trust for jurisdictional purposeand not for adjudicating the issues involved.” 24.We may only observe that the transfer order passed underSection 127 of the Act is more in the nature of an administrativeorder rather than a quasi-judicial order and the assessee cannothave any right to choose his Assessing Authority, as no prejudicecan be said to have been caused to the assessee depending uponwhich authority of the department passes the Assessment Order.The assessee can only be concerned with getting an opportunityof hearing before the concerned Assessing Authority and adducehis evidence and make his submissions before the concernedAssessing Authority. The Income Tax department has recentlyintroduced a scheme of Faceless Assessments with a view toavoid personal hearing and physical interaction of the assesseeand the Assessing Authority altogether. The assessee need noteven know the name of the Assessing Authority who will dealwith his case. 25.We have also looked into the judgments relied upon byMr.Darshan Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant. However, none of the judgments are of any avail to thewrit-applicant. 25.We have also looked into the judgments relied upon byMr.Darshan Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant. However, none of the judgments are of any avail to thewrit-applicant. 26.In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that nocase is made out for interference. 27.In the result, this writ-application fails and is herebyrejected. Notice stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, earliergranted, stands vacated forthwith. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J.) /MOINUDDIN (ILESH J. VORA, J.)