Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 1246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
M.K. Rajendran Pillai - Petitioner
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax and Others - Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 33(K), 34(K), 35(K), 36(K), 37(K), 38(K) and 39(K) of 2019
Decided on : 25-9-2019
Ms. M.L. Gope, Mr. A. Godi, Ms. P.S. Chakraborty and Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte for the petitioner.
Mr. S. Sarma for the respondents.
Headnote:
Income-tax Act, 1961 – Sections 127, 132, 153A – Assessment of Income Tax – Petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that cases of assessment of Income-tax of the petitioners have been transferred by way of centralization from Dimapur in the State of Nagaland to the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (‘ACIT’), Central Circle — Kollam, Kerala by orders all issued by the respondent No. 1, i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Jorhat purportedly exercising powers under section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which, they have alleged, are done without giving them proper notices and the opportunities of being heard. The petitioners have, in unison, prayed for setting aside of the said impugned orders, all dated 18.07.2018, and the subsequent notices issued to them under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ACIT), Central Circle, Kollam, Kerala. – Held, Court is of the opinion that there was no denial of affording reasonable opportunity of being heard in the cases of the petitioners. By assigning adequate reasons therein, the petitioners were given adequate opportunities to respond to the two notices containing the proposal to transfer their cases of assessment from the ACIT, Circle, Dimapur or the ITO, Ward-I, Dimapur, as the case may be, in the State of Nagaland to the ACIT Central Circle, Kollam in the State of Kerala before passing of the impugned orders – But by not responding to the said notices, the petitioners did not avail the opportunity so granted to them by submitting their responses and, as such, the plea of denial of the principles of natural justice is found to be not tenable and sustainable. – In such view of the matter, this court does not find any good and sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed in exercise of the powers under section 127(2)(a) of the Act and the consequent notice issued under section 153A of the Act.– Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
1. Heard Ms. M.L. Gope, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Sharma, learned senior standing counsel, Income-tax Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. As the subject-matters in this batch of writ petitions, preferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India, are analogous and interconnected with each other, the same are heard together at the motion stage itself in terms of the earlier orders of this court. On 31.7.2019, the Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and upon consideration of the facts of the cases, had adjourned the cases to 19.8.2019 on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners observing that the Court was not inclined to adjourn the cases. On 19.8.2019, the cases were adjourned till 23.8.2019 on the same ground. Accordingly, the writ petitions are taken up for disposal as agreed to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the necessary parties and as the exchange of pleadings between the necessary parties have already been completed. The affidavits-in-opposition have been filed in all the writ petitions by the respondent-Income-tax Department and the petitioners have also filed their affidavits-in-reply to the said affidavits-in-opposition.
3. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 34(K)/2019 is a son of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 33(K)/2019. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 35(K)/2019 is also a son of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 33(K)/2019. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 36(K)/2019 and the petitioner in WP(C) No. 39(K)/2019 are the wife and the daughter respectively of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 33(K)/2019. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 37(K)/2019 is a partnership firm, which is represented by one of its partners, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 35(K)/2019. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 38(K) is a private limited company, which is represented by one of its Directors, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 36(K)/2019.
4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that cases of assessment of Income-tax of the petitioners have been transferred by way of centralization from Dimapur in the State of Nagaland to the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (‘ACIT’), Central Circle — Kollam, Kerala by orders dated 18.7.2018, all issued by the respondent No. 1, i.e.! the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Jorhat purportedly exercising powers under section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which, they have alleged, are done without giving them proper notices and the opportunities of being heard. The petitioners have, in unison, prayed for setting aside of the said impugned orders, all dated 18.07.2018, and the subsequent notices issued to them under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ACIT), Central Circle, Kollam, Kerala.
5. The case of the petitioners is that they are regular assessees under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 8.6.2017 at various business as well as residential premises of M/s. Sreevalsam Group. The promoter of M/s. Sreevalsam Group (‘the Group’) is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 33 (K)/2019. Pursuant to the said search and seizure, show cause notices dated 7.12.2017, under section 127(2) of the Act, were issued to the petitioners asking them to represent as to why the proposal to transfer their cases from the ACIT, Circle, Dimapur or the ITO, Ward-I, Dimapur, as the case may be, in the State of Nagaland to the ACIT, Central Circle’ Kollam in the State of Kerala should not be given effect to for the purpose of centralization and for a co-ordinated investigation. In response to the said notices dated 7.12.2017, the petitioners had submitted their representations objecting to the said proposal for transfer of their cases for the purposes indicated therein, submitting, inter alia, tha
