JUDGMENT :

SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

1. The petitioner is a citizen of India and is duly assessed to tax under provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’).

2. The respondents are Union of India and its various representatives working for gain at the Income Tax Department [hereinafter referred to as ‘tax authorities’].

3. The instant petition [being W.P.A. 3868 of 2022] has been filed against the order dated February 23, 2022 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-9 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PCIT Kolkata/respondent no. 1’] vide which the petitioner’s income tax assessment was transferred from Kolkata to New Delhi under Section 127 of the Act.

Relevant Facts

4. A search operation under Section 132(1) of the Act and survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted on Praveen Kakkar, Rajendar Miglani, Lalit Chhallani, Prateek Joshi and Himanshu Sharma [hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘involved persons’] at Kolkata, Indore, Bhopal and other places by the Investigation Wing, Delhi. The operation was conducted on April 7, 2019 and subsequent dates.

5. The tax authorities purportedly found certain materials which indicated a nexus of the petitioner with the involved persons in large scale collection of illegal money and desired to centralise the assessment of the petitioner. On September 5, 2019, a show-cause notice [hereinafter referred to as ‘the first notice’] was issued with the proposal to transfer the petitioner’s case to New Delhi. The petitioner submitted its replies dated September 18, 2019 and October 3, 2019 which specifically denied all such allegations and requested for copies of all documents in relation to the search and survey operations.

6. The tax authorities passed an order dated February 18, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first order’) without considering the replies filed by the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. This Court, vide order dated January 11, 2022, quashed the first order on grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice, but recorded that it would not prevent the tax authorities from taking action of transfer if cogent material exists and after observing statutory requirements under Section 127(2) of the Act.

8. The respondent no. 1 again issued a show-cause notice dated January 11, 2022 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the second notice’]. The second notice contained a detailed account of the nexus with the involved persons and relevant material was adduced, on the basis of which the tax authorities indicated that they desired to centralize the assessment of the petitioner for the purposes of coordinated deep investigation, verifications, consequent assessment and administrative convenience. Furthermore, the authorities allowed for filing of reply and notes of submission (February 7 and 17, 2022). The petitioner’s advocates personally appeared and were heard on February 9, 2022. Thereafter, after considering these, the respondent no. 1 passed the Impugned Order, which the Petitioner has challenged in the instant writ petition.

9. An account of the ‘nexus’ as provided in the second notice and Impugned Order is given herein-below as it is necessary in determining the outcome of the present petition:

(a) Relation with Petitioner-Praveen Kakkar was Officer in Special Duty to the Chief Minister when the Petitioner was the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh. Rajendra Miglani was advisor to the Chief Minister. Prateek Joshi worked for the IT Cell of Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee and was in touch with Praveen Kakkar and Lalit Chhallani as per the evidence found in his phone. Himanshu Sharma was in touch with Praveen Kakkar, Rajendra Miglani and Lalit Chhallani as per evidence found in his phone.

(b) Documents/Evidence found:

(i) Praveen Kakkar’s house had documents which indicated payments made to MLAs and collections to be made by companies.

(ii) La