GHANSHYAM GUPTA AND 2 OTHERS V. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/1260/2018

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition by Ghanshyam Gupta and his family, challenging the transfer of their income tax assessment jurisdiction from ITO- Ward-1(1) (1) Agra to DCIT (Central Circle), Ghaziabad. This transfer followed a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the premises of Sri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav and others, including the petitioners, which uncovered incriminating documents. The Income Tax Department proposed centralizing the cases for a coordinated investigation due to the interconnection of various entities within the group and the location of most business activities in the NCR region. The court dismissed the petition, supporting the centralization for effective investigation and assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754004 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Virendra Kumar Jain and Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. 2006(283 ITR 541(All), Preeti Elhence Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2014(365)ITR 268 (All)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL AGARWAL
• Keywords: Income Tax; Jurisdiction transfer; Search and seizure; Centralised assessment
• Section: 132; 127(2); 127(3)

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1260 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Gupta And 2 Others Respondent :- Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kanpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel 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 Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav 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 writ petition 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 centralised assessment 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 search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 10.11.2017 by the Investigation Wing, Kanpur at the premises of Sri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav and others including the petitioners in which various incriminating documents/papers were found and seized. Most of the business activities of the aforesaid group are being carried out in NCR (Delhi, Noida, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad). In the interest of revenue and for coordinated investigation and assessment, the Investigation Wing of the Department has proposed to centralise all cases of the searched group for assessment by one Assessing Officer i.e. ACIT/DCIT (Central Circle) Ghaziabad. It has also been observed that papers seized/impounded indicate inter connection between 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 proposed centralization of the cases of the aforesaid group including the cases of the petitioners with DCIT (Central Circle) Ghaziabad. Notice under Section 127(2)(a) of the Act was issued to the petitioners requiring them to file their objection, if any. The petitioners submitted their objections, which were considered and the impugned order dated 20.8.2018 was passed under Section 127 of the Act transferring the jurisdiction over the case of the petitioners from Assessing Officer i.e. ITO-1(1)(1) Agra to the DCIT Centralised Circle, Ghaziabad. Aggrieved with these orders, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is aged about 67 years and, therefore, he shall face difficulty in attending the assessment proceedings at Ghaziabad. Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed before us by learned counsel for the petitioners that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of Sri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav and others including the petitioners and most of the business activities of the aforesaid group are being carried out in NCR (Delhi, Noida, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad). In the impugned order, the respondent no.2 has recorded the reasons for transferring of jurisdiction for assessment to DCIT (Central Circle) Ghaziabad, as under: \"After careful consideration of the objections raised alongwith comments of Dy.DIT(Inv) Unit-1, Ghaziabad on these objections, it is seen that in the interest of coordinated, sustained and proper comprehensive investigation, proper examination/verification of various documents seized and impounded, and meaningful assessment, it is necessary and expedient to centralize the cases of the above mentioned assessees with a single Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over other cases of the group. It will be prudent and logical to centralize these cases with the DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad, as the search itself originated from Ghaziabad and all subsequent enquiries, handling of seized material/records and assistance at the assessment stage would be more effective and efficient only if the cases are centralized/transferred to the jurisdiction of DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad.\" In our opinion, centralisation of cases belonging to a particular group to a single Assessing Officer for coordianted, proper and comprehensive investigation, examination/verification of various documents seized and impounded and for meaningful assessment is permissible under Section 127 of the Act. The impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Therefore, we do not find any error of law in the impugned orders transferring the jurisdiction to one Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT (Central Circle) Ghaziabad. The view being taken by us as above is also supported by two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Virendra Kumar Jain and Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar 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 merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 28.9.2018/vkg "