V.v.mineralsrep.by Its Partners.veikundarajan v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.02.2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019andWMP(MD)Nos.13453, 13454 & 23079 of 2019 V.V.Mineralsrep.by its PartnerS.Veikundarajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 Madurai, Kulamangalam Main Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai – 625 002. Central Circle 2 Madurai, Kulamangalam Main Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai – 625 002. 3.The Deputy Director of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 Madurai, Kulamangalam Main Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai – 625 002. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling forthe records of the 1st respondent comprised in the impugned orderNo.8/2018-19 bearing C.No.337/Pr.CIT-2/MDU/2018-19 dated 19.2.2019and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan for Mr.Kingsly Solomon for Mr.Kingsly Solomon For R1 : Mrs.S.Srimathy Standing Counsel Standing Counsel For R2 & R3 : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar Senior Standing Counsel Assisted by K.G.Usha Rani https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, has laidchallenge to the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the firstrespondent in transferring the cases to the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax (DCIT), Central Circle-2, Madurai, as violative of theprinciples of natural justice. 2.The petitioner states that it has been dealing in mineralindustry and has been complying with all the statutory requirementsin the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.]The petitioner has been filing returns regularly as per the Act. Theincome of the petitioner is subject to scrutiny / assessment everyyear and orders were passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Whileso, the officials of the Income Tax Department came to the premisesof the petitioner and effected search including the residence of hispartners and his relatives on 25.10.2018 under Section 132 of theAct. 3.The proceeding under Section 132 of the Act was concludedagainst the petitioner without any incriminating materials beingfound against him. Later, the petitioner received a notice dated28.01.2019 from the first respondent under Section 127(2) of theAct, proposing transfer of the petitioner's cases to the DCIT,Central Circle-2, Madurai. The petitioner was also directed to givehis response and personal hearing was fixed on 12.02.2019. Thepetitioner has also sent a reply on 16.02.2019 seeking certaindocuments in order to enable him to file objections. However, therequest of the petitioner was ignored, notifying the date of hearingas 18.02.2019. Though the petitioner insisted that the documentsrequested are vital for the petitioner to respond and make hisobjections, without even furnishing the documents sought for, theimpugned order came to be passed. The said order is challenged inthis writ petition contending that the same is in contravention ofSection 127(2) of the Act, as the first respondent has not compliedwith the mandatory requirements for transfer of cases to the DCIT,Central Circle-2, Madurai, on the ground that centralization ofgroup of cases is essential for effective and coordinatedinvestigation. 4.Out of 20 cases, only Sl.No.20 in schedule - I is with ITOWard 4, Virudhunagar. Rest of the cases are in Tirunelveli.According to the petitioner, even clubbing the case of Simarana,which is the only one pending in Virudhunagar, is to show that themembers of the family are having assessment in different places. Itis pointed out that the said Simarana is neither a partner nor ashareholder in any of the firms or companies of the petitioner.Therefore, including the case of the said Simarana is deliberate andjust to show that the members of the family are having assessment indifferent places.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. When this matter was taken up for admission on 05.08.2019,this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order, which wasextended subsequently. 6. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner and seeking tovacate the interim order, the respondents filed WMP (MD)No.23079 of2019 along with a counter-affidavit dated 19.11.2019. Even prior tothe filing of the said petition, the first respondent filed acounter-affidavit, wherein, among other things, it is stated that asearch proceedings under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in thepremises of the petitioner and there is no provision contained inthe Act mandating them to furnish copies of documents to theassessee, which were seized at the time of search, during 127proceedings. 7. It is also stated that it is a standard procedure of theDepartment that after the search, the assessees, to be centralizedare identified and a proposal for centralization is put up to theDirector General of Income Tax (DGIT). From the DGIT, the proposalgoes to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) for concurrence,who in turn, forwards the proposals to the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax (PCIT). The PCIT, thereafter, will transfer theexercising the powers under section 127 of the Act and afterfollowing the due procedures contemplated therein from the originalAssessing Officer to the Assessing Officer in the Central Circle andthus, there is no pre-determination on the part of the firstrespondent, as alleged by the petitioner. It is, thus, stated thatsince the procedure contemplated under the Act is followed properly,the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The second respondent in the counter dated 19.11.2019 hasstated that after the search proceedings, the material seized weretransferred to the “Central Circle”, which were created exclusivelyfor assessment of search cases, and the effective assessment wouldbe made therein, based on the evidence collected during the search.The second respondent relied on the instructions issued by theCentral Board of Direct Taxes in F.No.286/88/2008-IT (Inv.II), dated17.09.2008, which lays down the procedure to transfer such searchcases to the central circles for effective assessment. 9. The second respondent alleged that the undisclosed incomeof the petitioner group companies for Financial Years from 2011-12to 2016-17 runs to tune of Rs.2,262 Crores, as per the evidenceunearthed during the search and it is one among the largest searchin the recent past in the entire country. It is claimed that thepetitioner was given opportunity to raise objections to the reasonsstated in the show cause notice for the transfer and after followingthe mandates contained under Section 127 of the Act, the transferorder was passed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/10. It is also stated that the Income Tax Offices in a few 9. The second respondent alleged that the undisclosed incomeof the petitioner group companies for Financial Years from 2011-12to 2016-17 runs to tune of Rs.2,262 Crores, as per the evidenceunearthed during the search and it is one among the largest searchin the recent past in the entire country. It is claimed that thepetitioner was given opportunity to raise objections to the reasonsstated in the show cause notice for the transfer and after followingthe mandates contained under Section 127 of the Act, the transferorder was passed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/10. It is also stated that the Income Tax Offices in a few places / Revenue Districts are centralized to a Central Circle.Similarly, there is no Central Circle at Tirunelveli, andVirudhunagar, Theni, Tirunelveli and Karaikudi, though have theirown Income Tax Offices, attached to the Central Circle is inMadurai. The second respondent also claimed that to augment incometo the Revenue, which runs to several Crores, the assessmentproceedings have to be completed by the Centralized Circle withoutany delay, for which, it sought for dismissal of this writ petition. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that thereason stated by the authorities for transfer as 'interlacing andintermixing' of business activities cannot be justified withoutsubstantiating the same. To justify this stand, the petitionerrelied on the decision of this court in Noorul Islam EducationalTrust V. CIT, [W.P (MD) 60 of 2009], wherein, it is held that theremust be specific finding that there are interlacing andinterconnection of funds and materials to support the same. Unlessthe said conditions are satisfied and specific finding is given tothat effect, the transfer cannot be justified. Though the said viewtaken by the learned Single Judge was reversed by a Division Bench,on a further appeal to the Supreme Court of India in the casereported in (2017) 12 SCC 805, the decision of the Division Benchwas set aside. 12.The next objection raised by the petitioner is that thenotice calling upon the petitioner to give any objection does nothave any reference to the CBDT instruction No.286/88/2008, IncomeTax Department on 17.09.2008. Yet another contention of thepetitioner is that the impugned order is liable to be set aside asthe first respondent predetermined the whole issue and obtainedapproval of the Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax, which is longbefore the impugned order was passed. 13.The further contention of the petitioner is that the showcause notice was issued in a mechanical manner and withoutconsidering the objections raised by the petitioner seekingdocuments, on the basis of the said show cause notice, the transferhas been ordered. In support of this contention, the petitionerrelied on a decision of this court in MRL Postnet Private Ltd. V.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 11651. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contendedthat the impugned order is vitiated for the reason that theassessee/the petitioner herein was given a reasonable opportunity ofbeing heard in this matter and also for not recording reasons forsuch transfer. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order tosubstantiate the said contention of not being heard and for notgiving reasons for transfer, would draw the attention of the Courtto the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1976 1 SCC 1001[M/s.Ajantha Industries and others V. CBDT, New Delhi & Ors] andhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1990 2 SCC 48 [Management of M/s.M.S.Nally Bharat EngineeringCo.Ltd., V. State of Bihar and others]. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contendedthat the impugned order is vitiated for the reason that theassessee/the petitioner herein was given a reasonable opportunity ofbeing heard in this matter and also for not recording reasons forsuch transfer. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order tosubstantiate the said contention of not being heard and for notgiving reasons for transfer, would draw the attention of the Courtto the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1976 1 SCC 1001[M/s.Ajantha Industries and others V. CBDT, New Delhi & Ors] andhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1990 2 SCC 48 [Management of M/s.M.S.Nally Bharat EngineeringCo.Ltd., V. State of Bihar and others]. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contendedthat the assessee should be informed of the reason and the groundsfor the proposal. If the reason for transfer is not communicated inthe show cause notice, the opportunity will be illusionary and notan effective one. In support of the said contention he relied on thedecision of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court inVijayashanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner of IncomeTax and others, (1991) 187 ITR 405 and also submitted that theaforesaid view has been elaborately dealt with and approved inM/s.Chotanagapur Industrial Gases (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT (1998) 233 ITR377 (Cal.) and followed in Mul Chand Malu Vs. Union of India in WP(C) 5828 OF 2015, etc. batch, dated 25.02.2016. 16.On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsels for therespondents contended that the Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax/the first respondent is vested with the powers under Section 127of the Act to transfer the search cases in his jurisdiction to aparticular officer in any station for better co-ordination andinvestigation of group cases. In support of this contention, adecision of this court reported in (1999) 104 Taxman 566 (Madras),[General Exporters V. Commissioner of IT] is relied upon, wherein,it is held that the transfer of a case for coordianatedinvestigation cannot be found fault with. 17.The learned Standing Counsels for the respondents furtherstated that admittedly there is no objection from the side of thepetitioner for a detailed and coordinated investigation. But, withrespect to furnishing copies of the documents to the assessees inorder to make their objections against the transferring of casesunder Section 127 of the Act, there is no mandatory provisions inthe Act or any judicial pronouncements necessitating the same. Insupport of the said contention, the respondents relied on the casein Virendra Kumar and othersV. CIT reported in (2006) 283 ITR 541,wherein it is observed as under: “The contention of the petitioner that thedepartment should have furnished information (as claimed bythem in their reply) is not at all sound as the departmentcannot be compelled or required at the initial stage todisclose the “material or information” as it may “embraceor prejudice” the assessment. The legal position is crystalclear and settled by a catena of the decisions of thisCourt and the Apex Court on this issue. ....” 18.The learned counsels for the respondents reiterating thestandard procedure as stated in the counter-affidavit would submitthat there is no pre-determination on the part of the firsthttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/respondent, as alleged by the petitioner and issuance of notice is not just a formality but an opportunity to raise objections, whichwas duly complied with by the respondents. 19. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerand the learned Standing Counsels for the Revenue and perused thematerials available on record. 20. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is apt toreproduce Section 127(1) and (2) of the Act as hereunder : 127. Power to transfer cases - 18.The learned counsels for the respondents reiterating thestandard procedure as stated in the counter-affidavit would submitthat there is no pre-determination on the part of the firsthttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/respondent, as alleged by the petitioner and issuance of notice is not just a formality but an opportunity to raise objections, whichwas duly complied with by the respondents. 19. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerand the learned Standing Counsels for the Revenue and perused thematerials available on record. 20. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is apt toreproduce Section 127(1) and (2) of the Act as hereunder : 127. Power to transfer cases - (1) The Director General or Chief Commissioner orCommissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonableopportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it ispossible to do so, and after recording his reasons fordoing so, transfer any case from one or more AssessingOfficers subordinate to him (whether with or withoutconcurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officeror Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrentjurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or AssessingOfficers from whom the case is to be transferred and theAssessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the caseis to be transferred are not subordinate to the sameDirector General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner,-(a) where the Directors General or ChiefCommissioners or Commissioners,. to whom such AssessingOfficers are subordinate are in agreement, then theDirector General or Chief Commissioner or Commissionerfrom whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferredmay, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunityof being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible todo so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, passthe order; (b) where the Directors General or ChiefCommissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not inagreement, the order transferring the case may,similarly, be passed by the Board or any such DirectorGeneral or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as theBoard may, by notification in the Official Gazette,authorise in this behalf." 21. The twin conditions to be complied with by the firstrespondent is (i) the assessee should be given a reasonableopportunity of being heard ; and (ii) the reasons for transfershould be recorded. Admittedly, the show cause notice dated28.01.2019 was issued to the petitioner on 28.01.2019, in terms ofSection 127(2) of the Act giving them about two weeks time to submittheir objections and the reasons for the proposed transfer, asstated therein, is that detailed, coordinated and centralizedhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/investigation. The petitioner sent a letter on 31.01.2019 expressing their no objection for detailed investigation and co-ordination, however, stated that the transfer is irrelevant for thesaid purpose and also sought time to file their objections. Theyalso sought for the relevant documents and the specific reasons forthe proposed transfer. Subsequently, a notice dated 11.02.2019fixing the date of hearing on 18.02.2019 was sent to the petitioner.The petitioner reiterating its previous stand and requirements senta letter dated 16.02.2019. Thereafter, the impugned order came to bepassed. 22. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MRL PostnetPrivate Ltd. V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2018 SCCOnLine Mad 11651, is relied upon by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that in the absence of reasons for transfer, the saidorder would have to be construed as the one passed withoutapplication of mind. The relevant portion of the said order reads asunder: 22. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MRL PostnetPrivate Ltd. V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2018 SCCOnLine Mad 11651, is relied upon by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that in the absence of reasons for transfer, the saidorder would have to be construed as the one passed withoutapplication of mind. The relevant portion of the said order reads asunder: "9.No doubt, the show cause notice issued tothepetitioner stated some reasons. But at the same time,when such reasons are opposed and a reply is filed by theassessee objecting the transfer, the first respondent hasto necessarily record his reasons with certain facts andcircumstances warranting the transfer and to justify thatcentralised/coordinated investigation is required in aparticular case. No doubt, the learned counsel for therespondents contended that since the reasons are clearlystated in the show cause notice, they need not bereiterated once again in the order rejecting theobjections against transfer. I do not find anyjustification on such submission. If such view isaccepted, then there would be no meaning or purpose inissuing the show cause notice. Needless to say thatreasons stated in the show cause notice are only to beconstrued as a prima facie view of the Authority issuingsuch show cause notice and not as his conclusive view orfinding in respect of the subject matter in issue.Therefore, any reason stated in the show cause notice isalways subject to change or affirmation depending uponthe consideration of the objection raised against thepropose made in the show cause notice. Therefore, anorder passed in pursuant to the show cause notice, shouldnecessarily deal with the reasons stated in the showcause notice as well as the objections raised againstthose reasons. Thus, after considering the reasons andobjections, the final view of the Authority should bemade available evidently on the face of the order itselfwith reasons and discussions. If not, the order passedwithout recording reasons, would have to be construed asthe one out of non application of mind."https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 23. In (1976) 1 SCC 1001, M/s.Ajantha Industries and othersV. CBDT, New Delhi & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held asfollows: "10.The reason for recording of reasons in theorder and making these reasons known to the assessee is toenable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the HighCourt under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226of theConstitution or even this Court under Article 136of theConstitution in an appropriate case for challenging theorder, inter alia, either on the ground that it is malafide or arbitration or that it is based on irrelevant andextraneous considerations. Whether such a writ or specialleave application ultimately fails is not relevant for adecision of the question. 11.We are clearly of opinion that the requirementof recording reasons under section 127(1)is a mandatorydirection under the law and non-communication thereof isnot saved by showing that the reasons exist in the filealthough not communicated to the assessee. ...... 15.When law requires reasons to be recorded in aparticular order affecting prejudicially the interests ofany person, who can challenge the order in court, it ceasesto be a mere administrative order and the vice of violationof the principles of natural justice on account of omissionto communicate the reasons is not expiated.” 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1990) 2 SCC 48, Management of M/s.M.S.Nally Bharat Engineering Co.Ltd., V. State of Bihar andothers, has held as follows: "21.A case with a not dissimilar problem wasin Pannalal Binjraj and Anr. v. Union of India, [1957] 31ITR 565. There the Commissioner of Income Tax by the powervested under section 5(7A)of Income Tax Act, 1922,transferred an assessee's case from one Income Tax Officerto another without hearing the assessee. Section 5(7A)ofthe Income Tax Act, 1922 provided: 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1990) 2 SCC 48, Management of M/s.M.S.Nally Bharat Engineering Co.Ltd., V. State of Bihar andothers, has held as follows: "21.A case with a not dissimilar problem wasin Pannalal Binjraj and Anr. v. Union of India, [1957] 31ITR 565. There the Commissioner of Income Tax by the powervested under section 5(7A)of Income Tax Act, 1922,transferred an assessee's case from one Income Tax Officerto another without hearing the assessee. Section 5(7A)ofthe Income Tax Act, 1922 provided: "The Commissioner of Income-Tax may transferany case from one Income-Tax Officer subordinate tohim to another, and the Central Board of Revenue maytransfer any case from any one Income-Tax Officer toanother. Such transfer may be made at any stage ofthe proceedings, and shall not render necessary there-issue of any notice already issued by the Incometax Officer from whom the case is transferred." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22.This Section did not provide for affording anopportunity to the assessee before transferring his casefrom one Income Tax Officer to another. The assesseechallenged the constitutional validity of the Section.This Court upheld its validity on the ground that it is aprovision for administrative convenience. N.H. Bhagwati,J., speaking for this Court, however remarked (at 589): " ..... it would be prudent if the principlesof natural justice are followed, where circumstancespermit, before any order of transfer under section 5(7A) of the Act is made by the Commissioner ofIncome-Tax or the Central Board of Revenue, as thecase may be, and notice is given to the partyaffected and he is afforded a reasonable opportunityof representing his views on the question and thereasons of the order are reduced however briefly towriting ... There is no presumption against the bonafide or the honesty of an assessee and normally theincome-tax authorities would not be justified inrefusing to an assessee a reasonable opportunity ofrepresenting his views when any order to theprejudice of the normal procedure laid downin section 64(1) and (2) of the Act is sought to bemade against him, be it a transfer from one Income-Tax Officer within the State to an Income-TaxOfficer without it, except of course where the veryobject of the transfer would be frustrated if noticewas given to the party affected." 23.Section 5(7A) was replaced by Section 127 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, which now makes it obligatory torecord reasons in making the order of transfer afteraffording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to theassessee in the matter. In Ajantha Industries v. CentralBoard of Taxes, [1976] 2 SCR 884 this Court considered thevalidity of a transfer order passed under Section 127 andit was held that merely recording of reasons on the filewas not sufficient. It was essential to give reasons tothe affected party. The order of transfer in that case wasquashed for not communicating reasons to the assessee." 25. In Sahara Hospitality Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of IT - 8,reported in (2013) 258 CTR (BOM) 275, it is held by a Division Benchof the High Court of Bombay as follows: "16. .... The introduction in Section 127(1) and (2)of 1961 Act, indicates the legislative intent of providingan assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard incases falling under sub sections (1) & (2) thereof.17.In conclusion therefore we hold that the wordhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 'may' in section 127 should read as 'shall'. Therequirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunityof being heard wherever it is possible to do so, ismandatory. The discretion of the authorities is only as towhat is a reasonable opportunity in a given case and on thequestion whether it is possible in the given case toprovide the opportunity." 26. Another Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in thecase of Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom296, has held as follows : 'may' in section 127 should read as 'shall'. Therequirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunityof being heard wherever it is possible to do so, ismandatory. The discretion of the authorities is only as towhat is a reasonable opportunity in a given case and on thequestion whether it is possible in the given case toprovide the opportunity." 26. Another Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in thecase of Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom296, has held as follows : "11. Again there cannot be any dispute regardingsome observation which has to be noticed that co-ordinating investigation can always be a good ground fortransfer from one place to another. What the Apex Courthas observed in Ajantha Industries (supra) is that whiletransferring the csae on the ground of co-ordinatedinvestigation, some reason has to be given by thecommissioner which reveals that why it is necessary totransfer the case for the purpose of co-ordinatedinvestigation. In our view unfortunately, Commissioner ofIncome Tax apart from stating that case has beentransferred for co-ordinating investigation has not givenany other reason. Impugned order is therefore quashedand set aside. Matter is however remanded back to theCommissioner of Income Tax who shall pass fresh orderunder Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act after givingan opportunity to the petitioner and pass an order inaccordance with law after recording his reasons." 27. In Devidas Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1993)200 ITR 697 (BOM), in paragraph - 9, it is observed as follows:"9.Thus in the matter of objection to thejurisdiction of the assessing officer and transfer of thecase, a valuable right of an assessee is clearlyinvolved, which cannot be adversly adjudicated uponwithout affording him an opportunity of hearing anddisclosing him the reasons for not accepting his point ofview." 28. The aforementioned decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Courtand various High Courts make it clear that providing a reasonableopportunity of being heard and the reasons for transfer arenecessary before effecting the transfer. As per the said decisions,proper reasons have to be adduced for the purpose of centralisationof the cases. But, in the impugned order no such reasons have beengiven by the first respondent, and it has been simply stated thatcentralisation of group of cases is essential, which cannot be thesole ground for transferring the cases. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 29. With respect to the contention of the petitioner that noreason was assigned for transfer, the learned counsel appearing forthe respondents relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court inShree Ram Vessel Scrap Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV[Special Civil Application No.16886 of 2012] wherein, it is held asfollows : "We do not find that the Commissioner committed anyerror either in law or in facts. Reason for transfer wasclearly indicated in the show cause notice namely, forcentralisation of cases and for effective and coordinatedinvestigation. Such reasons were further elaborated whiledealing with and disposing of the objections of thepetitioners in the final order of the transfer. ...." 30. The said judgment of the Gujarat High Court is squarelyapplicable to the instant case, as it cannot be stated that theimpugned order lacks reason. It cannot be also stated that the firstrespondent did not provide opportunity to the petitioner to giveobjections and on the other hand, he failed to give properobjections for the transfer within the time stipulated, instead, hesought for the documents to make his objections. 31. The learned counsels for the respondents also relied uponthe case in Advantage Strategic Consulting (P) Ltd. V. PCIT, Chennaireported in (2017) 88 Taxman.com 104 (Mad), wherein this court heldas follows: 30. The said judgment of the Gujarat High Court is squarelyapplicable to the instant case, as it cannot be stated that theimpugned order lacks reason. It cannot be also stated that the firstrespondent did not provide opportunity to the petitioner to giveobjections and on the other hand, he failed to give properobjections for the transfer within the time stipulated, instead, hesought for the documents to make his objections. 31. The learned counsels for the respondents also relied uponthe case in Advantage Strategic Consulting (P) Ltd. V. PCIT, Chennaireported in (2017) 88 Taxman.com 104 (Mad), wherein this court heldas follows: "Where assessee's case was transferred from oneplace to another in same city, in view of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 127, assessee could not plead for anopportunity of hearing before order of transfer". 32. In the present case, the transfer was made fromTirunelveli to Madurai Central Circle and though not within the samelocality or same city. The petitioner challenged the impugned orderpassed under section 127(2) and not under Section 127(3). Therefore,the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 33.Learned counsels for the Respondents placed reliance onthe judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Patel KNR JV Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 76 taxmann.com 11 (SC), to drivehome the point that where assessee did not challenge the order oftransfer of its case at the earliest letting all believe that suchtransfer was accepted, assessee should be barred from challengingthe same on exercise of jurisdiction by a new authority. In thesaid case the Hon'ble Apex Court refused to interfere with thejudgment of the First Bench of the High Court of Bombay, in the casein Patel KNR JV Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 50taxmann.com 82 (Bombay), wherein, it was held as follows : “5.We have considered the rival submissions. Beforehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examining the merits of the impugned order dated August 31,2012, we shall first examine the objection of the Revenuethat the petition ought not to be entertained on account ofdelay. In this case, the impugned order was passed onAugust 31, 2012. The petitioner states that the impugnedorder of transfer of its case from Mumbai to Hyderabad wasreceived by it on December 7, 2012. The petitioner hasfiled the petition only on February 11, 2013, i.e., afterabout two months after the receipt of the impugned order.Further, even after filing the petition, the petitionerchose not to move the petition and seek any relief ofinterim or ad interim nature staying the implementation oftransfer of its case by the impugned order dated August 31,2012. ..... This inordinate delay on the part of thepetitioner has been explained only by stating that theimpugned order dated August 31, 2012, under section 127 ofthe Act was received only on December 7, 2012. Thereafter,the delay in filing a petition in the court of over twomonths and the neglect in moving the court to seek a stayon the impugned order dated August 31, 2012, isunexplained.” 34. In the case on hand, the impugned order came to be passedon 19.02.2019 and till the issuance of the assessment notices dated15.07.2019 under Section 153A of the Act, the petitioner did notchallenge the order of transfer and there is no explanation for thedelay in challenge. Hence, the petitioner is barred from challengingthe same in exercise of jurisdiction by a new authority and thisCourt need not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution to interfere with the impugned order. Thoughthe other grounds raised by the petitioner have also no merit-acceptance, without delving further into those grounds, this Courtis of the view that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed onthese grounds. 34. In the case on hand, the impugned order came to be passedon 19.02.2019 and till the issuance of the assessment notices dated15.07.2019 under Section 153A of the Act, the petitioner did notchallenge the order of transfer and there is no explanation for thedelay in challenge. Hence, the petitioner is barred from challengingthe same in exercise of jurisdiction by a new authority and thisCourt need not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution to interfere with the impugned order. Thoughthe other grounds raised by the petitioner have also no merit-acceptance, without delving further into those grounds, this Courtis of the view that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed onthese grounds. 35. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed as devoidof merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. // True Copy // To 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 Madurai, Kulamangalam Main Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai – 625 002. 3.The Deputy Director of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 Madurai, Kulamangalam Main Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai – 625 002. +1 CC to M/s.S.SRIMATHY, Advocate ( SR-9285[F] dated 28/02/2020 )+1 CC to M/s.T.R.SENTHIL KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-9348[F] dated28/02/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.KINGSLY SOLOMON, Advocate ( SR-9500[F] dated 02/03/2020 W.P(MD)No.16869 of 201928.02.2020 JMN(11.03.2020) 13P : 7C