The court upheld the transfer of the petitioner's case under the Income Tax Act, confirming compliance with natural justice principles and justifying the transfer based on suspicious cash transactions.

ORDER :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sanket S.Bora with learned advocate Mr. K.B. Maghnani for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval for the respondent.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has made the following prayers:

“A. to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 21^st December 2024 at Ann.K and impugned order dated 2^nd January 2025 at Ann-L and other consequential notices and order in pursuance thereof; or B. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prohibiting Respondents from taking any steps or coercive action in furtherance of the impugned order dated 2^nd January 2025 and other consequential notices and order in pursuance thereof;

C. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent No. 1 to provide the Petitioner with the information and documents relied by the Respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned Order dated2nd January 2025; at Ann-L D. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause "B".

E. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause "C".

F. For costs of this petition;

G. For any other relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-assessee who is a resident of Vadodara received an intimation from respondent no.1 on 9^th November, 2023 along with notice issued under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) with regard to transfer of case of the petitioner to Pune on the ground that the petitioner was having significant suspicious cash transactions with M/s. G.K. Associates which is assessed with DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Pune and therefore, in the interest of Revenue, case of the petitioner was sought to be transferred to Pune.

4. The petitioner furnished reply vide an email dated 20.11.2023 addressed to respondent no.1 with an attached letter dated 18.11.2023 contending as to why the case should not be transferred to Pune.

5. Respondent no.1 however passed an order under section 127 of the Act dated 29.11.2023 to transfer the case of the petitioner to Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Pune for further consideration on the ground that the petitioner did not submit its response.

6. The petitioner thereafter addressed a letter dated 30.11.2023 to respondent whereby the petitioner submitted proof of its earlier submissions and asked respondent no.1 to revise its order dated 29.11.2023. A physical copy of the said letter was also given on 1.12.2023 to the office of respondent no.1.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that since the order dated 29.11.2023 was in violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.20913 of 2023 wherein this Court disposed of the matter by granting the liberty to the respondent to pass corrigendum order.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1 however issued impugned show cause notice dated 21.12.2024 under the guise of corrigendum letter and the impugned notice mentioned additional facts beyond the original notice dated 9.11.2023 directing the petitioner to make submissions.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that since the impugned notice was ultra vires the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner had not given any reply to such no