Wtax/1260/2018 Of Ghanshyam Gupta And 2 Others v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kanpur And 2 Others

Court No. - 35Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1260 of 2018Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Gupta And 2 OthersRespondent :- Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kanpur And 2 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Rahul AgarwalCounsel for Respondent :- S.S.C.,Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Heard Ms. Archi Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of SriRahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and SriGaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent-department. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the petitioner no.2 and father of the petitioner no.3. They have filed this writpetition praying to quash the orders dated 20.8.2018,passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 127(2)/(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as"the Act") whereby their cases for centralisedassessment have been transferred from ITO- Ward-1(1)(1) Agra to DCIT (Central Circle), Ghaziabad Briefly stated facts of the present case are that a searchand seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act wascarried out on 10.11.2017 by the Investigation Wing,Kanpur at the premises of Sri Rajeshwar Singh Yadavand others including the petitioners in which variousincriminating documents/papers were found and seized.Most of the business activities of the aforesaid group arebeing carried out in NCR (Delhi, Noida, Gurgaon,Ghaziabad). In the interest of revenue and forcoordinated investigation and assessment, theInvestigation Wing of the Department has proposed tocentralise all cases of the searched group forassessment by one Assessing Officer i.e. ACIT/DCIT(Central Circle) Ghaziabad. It has also been observedthat papers seized/impounded indicate inter connectionbetween different entities of the group/cases and,therefore, coordinated investigation is required. The Principal CIT (Central) Kanpur vide letter dated 23.01.2018 has conveyed his consent for the proposedcentralization of the cases of the aforesaid groupincluding the cases of the petitioners with DCIT (CentralCircle) Ghaziabad. Notice under Section 127(2)(a) of theAct was issued to the petitioners requiring them to filetheir objection, if any. The petitioners submitted theirobjections, which were considered and the impugnedorder dated 20.8.2018 was passed under Section 127 ofthe Act transferring the jurisdiction over the case of thepetitioners from Assessing Officer i.e. ITO-1(1)(1) Agra tothe DCIT Centralised Circle, Ghaziabad. Aggrieved with these orders, the petitioners have filedthe present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is aged about 67 years and, therefore, heshall face difficulty in attending the assessmentproceedings at Ghaziabad. Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order. We have carefully considered the submissions oflearned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed before us by learned counsel for the petitioners that a search and seizure operation underSection 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises ofSri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav and others including thepetitioners and most of the business activities of theaforesaid group are being carried out in NCR (Delhi,Noida, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad). In the impugned order, therespondent no.2 has recorded the reasons fortransferring of jurisdiction for assessment to DCIT(Central Circle) Ghaziabad, as under: "After careful consideration of the objections raised alongwith commentsof Dy.DIT(Inv) Unit-1, Ghaziabad on these objections, it is seen that in theinterest of coordinated, sustained and proper comprehensiveinvestigation, proper examination/verification of various documents seized petitioners that a search and seizure operation underSection 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises ofSri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav and others including thepetitioners and most of the business activities of theaforesaid group are being carried out in NCR (Delhi,Noida, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad). In the impugned order, therespondent no.2 has recorded the reasons fortransferring of jurisdiction for assessment to DCIT(Central Circle) Ghaziabad, as under: "After careful consideration of the objections raised alongwith commentsof Dy.DIT(Inv) Unit-1, Ghaziabad on these objections, it is seen that in theinterest of coordinated, sustained and proper comprehensiveinvestigation, proper examination/verification of various documents seized and impounded, and meaningful assessment, it is necessary andexpedient to centralize the cases of the above mentioned assessees witha single Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over other cases of thegroup. It will be prudent and logical to centralize these cases with theDCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad, as the search itself originated fromGhaziabad and all subsequent enquiries, handling of seizedmaterial/records and assistance at the assessment stage would be moreeffective and efficient only if the cases are centralized/transferred to thejurisdiction of DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad." In our opinion, centralisation of cases belonging to a particular group to a single Assessing Officer forcoordianted, proper and comprehensive investigation,examination/verification of various documents seizedand impounded and for meaningful assessment ispermissible under Section 127 of the Act. The impugnedorders are neither arbitrary nor based on irrelevant orextraneous considerations. Therefore, we do not findany error of law in the impugned orders transferring thejurisdiction to one Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT (CentralCircle) Ghaziabad. The view being taken by us as above is also supported by two Division Bench judgments of this Court inVirendra Kumar Jain and Vijay Kumar PradeepKumar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.2006(283 ITR 541(All) and Preeti Elhence Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax 2014(365)ITR 268 (All). In view of the above discussion, we do not find any meritin this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition failsand is hereby dismissed.Order Date :- 28.9.2018/vkg