Jagmohan Krishan Dang V. The Commissioner of Income-Tax and others

CWP/1894/2011

AI Insights

The case involves Jagmohan Krishan Dang, the petitioner, who challenged the transfer of his income tax assessment case from Gurgaon to Delhi. The transfer was ordered by the Commissioner of Income-Tax due to the petitioner's connections with a group of companies undergoing a search and seizure operation. The petitioner argued that the transfer was unjustified as he had no significant financial association with the group, apart from being their lawyer and having purchased land from them. The court, however, upheld the transfer, emphasizing the need for a coordinated investigation and proper assessment framing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796344 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: URVASHI DHUGGA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY BANSAL; ANURAG GOYAL
• Keywords: Assessment; Case transfer; Coordinated investigation; Financial Implications; Income Tax
• Section: 153C; 127(2)

Judgement Text

"Civil Writ Petition No.1894 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1894 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.4.2011 Jagmohan Krishan Dang ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Income-Tax and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 18.10.2010 passed under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) transferring the case of the petitioner for assessment from Gurgaon to Delhi. 2. The reason for transfer mentioned in the impugned order is that the assessee was connected to the group of Ashok Soloman and Chintels Group of companies where search & seizure had been carried on 26.3.2010. It was considered necessary for coordinated post search investigation and proper framing of assessment that the Civil Writ Petition No.1894 of 2011 -2- **** case of the petitioner should be transferred to Delhi. Opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee and his view point was taken into account. The assessee was a lawyer for the group of companies whose cases were being investigated and had also purchased land from the said group. After purchasing the said land, he had entered into a collaboration agreement with the associate company of the said group of companies. In these circumstances, the Commissioner recorded satisfaction that for coordinated investigation transfer of the case of the petitioner from Gurgaon to Delhi was necessary. 3. According to the petitioner, there was no valid ground for transfer as he was merely a lawyer and had no financial association with the group of companies whose assessment was taking place at Delhi. Mere fact that he purchased land and entered into a collaboration agreement did not render it necessary to club his case with the cases of the group of companies whose investigation was being done. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons given for exercising jurisdiction to transfer of assessment are not germane. There is no material to show any financial nexus between the petitioner and the searched companies. Solitary transaction of purchase of land stood disclosed by the petitioner in his return. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. 7. There is no doubt that under Section 127 of the Act Civil Writ Petition No.1894 of 2011 -3- **** assessment can be transferred to a place other than the place of normal assessment only for adequate reasons. Such jurisdiction has to be exercised fairly and after complying with the principles of natural justice by giving hearing and recording reasons. Once bonafide opinion is formed on the basis of valid reasons, order of transfer is not liable to be interfered with. 8. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner had dealings with the group of companies not only as a lawyer but also in dealing with the property, having financial implications. The adequacy of reasons or the fact that the different remedy could be taken under Section 153C of the Act, as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned order. 9. In view of above, no ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 07, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge "