Ajay Goel V. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and others

CWP/17591/2016

AI Insights

Ajay Goel, a partner in one of the firms of the Tirupati Group, challenged an order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which transferred his case from the Assessing Officer in Kurukshetra to Noida. This transfer followed a search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Act, conducted on the Tirupati Group and the Sunworld Group of Companies. The petitioner argued that no impounding was done and no objectionable materials were found at his works, and he raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the Noida office since his Chartered Accountant was based in Kurukshetra. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the lack of a valid explanation for the delay in filing the challenge and the absence of any stay on the transfer order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 794216 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: AMAN BANSAL
• Keywords: Income Tax; Noida; Search and seizure; Transfer of cases; Tirupati Group; Kurukshetra
• Section: 132(1); 127

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17591-2016 Date of decision:- 29.08.2016 Ajay Goel ...Petitioner Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Present:- Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged an order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) transferring the cases relating to him from the Assessing Officer, Kurukshetra to the Assessing Officer, Noida. 2. By a notice dated 05.03.2015, the petitioner was informed that search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 11.11.2014 on the Tirupati Group and the Sunworld Group of Companies and that the petitioner’s case was connected with the Tirupati Group. The petitioner agrees that he is a partner in one of the firms of the Tirupati Group. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing. The hearing was fixed on 11.03.2015. The petitioner, however, only addressed a reply dated 09.03.2015 and did not avail the opportunity of being heard on 11.03.2015. The petitioner contended, interalia, that no impounding had been done in the case; that no objectionable things were found at his works; that as per the action plan, no scrutiny can be done in the absence of impounding during survey operations and that his Chartered Accountant is based in Kurukshetra. Amodh Sharma 2016.08.31 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh CWP-17591-2016 2 3. As we mentioned earlier, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of being heard. The Commissioner of Income Tax, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 15.04.2015. The impugned order noted the reply filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is connected with a part of the Tirupati Group. The impugned order was passed over a year ago. There is no valid explanation for the petitioner having waited over a year to challenge the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) has been challenged before the Delhi High Court and that the same is placed on board on 09.11.2016. 5. Our attention, however, has not been invited to any stay which would enure to the benefit of the petitioner so far as the order impugned in this writ petition is concerned, namely, the transfer of the proceedings from Kurukshetra to Noida. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the order. If ultimately the order passed in the proceedings filed by the Tirupati Group before the Delhi High Court deals with the petitioner’s rights in respect of the order impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner is always at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 29.08.2016 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Amodh Sharma 2016.08.31 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh "