Kamaljeet S. Ahluwalia and M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power and M/s Kaype Enterprises and Smt. Indu Ahluwalia and Prashant Ahluwalia and Pawan Ahluwalia V. Union of India & Ors.

CW/13303/2010

AI Insights

The case involves a series of petitions filed by members of the Ahluwalia group against the Union of India, challenging the transfer of their income tax cases from Jaipur to Rourkela. The transfer was initiated by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation that allegedly uncovered significant tax evasion by the Ahluwalia group. The petitioners argued that the transfer was unjustified and procedurally flawed, as individual notices were not served to all affected parties, and the decision was made under duress and without proper consideration of their objections. The court examined the procedural aspects of the transfer and the substantive reasons provided for it, ultimately deciding to quash the transfer for some petitioners due to procedural irregularities while upholding it for others.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803128 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ajantha Industries Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, ATS Infrastructure Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J K SINGHI; ANUROOP SINGHI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANANT KASLIWAL; VAIBHAV KASLIWAL
• Keywords: Assessment Transfer; Centralization of Cases; Income tax evasion; Income Tax Transfer; Permanent Account Number; Search and seizure
• Section: 132; 127(2)

Judgement Text

" CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1-Civil Writ Petition No.13411/2010 Kamaljeet S.Ahluwalia Versus Union of India & Ors. 2-Civil Writ Petition No.13410/2010 M/s Kamaljeet S.Ahluwalia Versus Union of India & Ors. 3-Civil Writ Petition No.13272/2010 Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Versus Union of India & Ors. 4-Civil Writ Petition No.13277/2010 M/s Kaype Enterprises Versus Union of India & Ors. 5-Civil Writ Petition No.13280/2010 Smt. Indu Ahluwalia Versus Union of India & Ors. 6-Civil Writ Petition No.13299/2010 Prashant Ahluwalia Versus Union of India & Ors. 7-Civil Writ Petition No.13303/2010 Pawan Ahluwalia Versus Union of India & Ors. / Reportable / Date of Order ::: 02/02/2011 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Anant Kasliwal & Mr. Vaibhav Kasliwal, for petitioners. Mr. JK Singhi & Mr. Anuroop Singhi, for respondents-IT Deptt Since common controversy has been raised in a bunch of instant petitions, hence heard together at joint request and they are being finally disposed of at admission stage by common order. Main controversy raised herein for consideration relates to common order dt. 26/09/2010, by which Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur (I) in exercise of powers U/s 127 (2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) transferred IT cases of petitioners (Kamaljeet S.Ahluwalia-CWP-13411/2010, Pawan Ahluwalia- CWP-13303/2010 Prashant Ahluwalia-CWP-13299/ 2010, M/s Kamaljeet S.Ahluwalia-CWP-13410/ CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //2// 2010, M/s Kaype Enterprises -CWP-13277/2010, M/s Kamal Sponge Power & Steel Ltd-CWP-13272/ 2010 & Smt.Indu Ahluwalia-CWP-13280/2010) from Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur to DC/ACIT, Rourkela (Orissa). Facts being common to the controversy raised in instant bunch of petitions are being taken note out of CWP-13411/2010 (KJS Ahluwalia Vs. Union of India & Ors). The petitioners are regular income tax assessees having held their Permanent Account Numbers (PAN) and got their income tax assessments made every year on having filed IT returns in the office of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Jaipur and indisputably they are members of Ahluwalia group. It has come on record that a search & seizure operation U/s 132 of IT Act was carried out in Ahluwalia group including their assets on 12/11/2009 by Investigation Wing of IT Department at Bhubneshwar - during which, as alleged, they made a disclosure of Rs.150 Crores of concealed income. It was alleged that there were evasion of income tax by Ahluwalia Group and to ensure co-ordination & co-operation in proper investigations of evasion of income tax, it was proposed to centralize cases of Ahluwalia group vide letter dt.08/12/2009 (Ann.R/1) whereby request CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //3// of centralization was made by Addl. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Unit-1, Bhubneshwar to the Chief Commissioner of IT Bhubneshwar - pursuant to which the matter vide letter dt.15/12/2009 (Ann.R/3) was referred to the Commissioner of IT Sambalpur to take up the matter with the CIT, Jaipur Rajasthan for centralization of the cases with AC/DC (IT) Rourkela Circle and accordingly, after taking report, the Commissioner of IT Sambalpur sent a report vide letter (Ann.R/4) to the Commissioner of IT Jaipur on 23rd/30th December, 2009 that under the circumstances stated in its report, centralization of all the assessees under Asstt/Dy. Commissioner of IT Rourkela is necessary for co-ordinated investigation & proper assessment. Pursuant thereto, a notice dt.11/01/2020 (Ann.R/5) was served upon KJS Ahluwalia that a proposal of centralization of cases of present petitioners from DCIT-II Jaipur to AC/DC (IT), Rourkela has been received; and petitioner (KJS Ahluwalia) was called upon in exercise of powers U/s 127(2) of IT Act. It is a matter of record that notice dt.11/01/2010 being addressed to KJS Ahluwalia at 65, Gopalbari, Jaipur was served upon him only and whole proceedings in regard to centralization of all the cases of petitioners CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //4// assessees (mentioned in notice, itself) were initiated by serving notice only upon KJS Ahluwalia on the premise that he is the person taking care of cases of Ahluwalia group as representative on behalf of assessees (petitioners herein) and no individual notice indisputably was issued to the respective assessees referred to in the notice dt.11/01/2010. However, KJS Ahluwalia submitted objections pursuant to the notice dt. 11/01/2010 and objections raised vide his reply dt.16/01/2010 (Ann.R/6) were sent for comments to the Commissioner of IT, Sambalpur - whose comments were again sent to KJS Ahluwalia, to which he submitted detailed objections in counter; and after affording him an opportunity of hearing and taking note of final comments sent vide letter dt.02/09/2010 from Director of IT (Inv.), Bhubneswar, the Commissioner of IT Jaipur-I after being satisfied vide common order dt.26/09/2010 took its decision to transfer IT cases of KJS Ahluwalia group of assets/ petitioners from assessing officer (DCIT Circle-II Jaipur) to AC/DC-IT, Rourkela. It is the cause of grievance of petitioners for approaching this Court by way of a bunch of instant petitions. It is a matter of record that M/S KJS CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //5// Ahluwalia (CWP-13410/2010) besides being an individual assessee, is a proprietary Firm and at the same time, KJS Ahlulwalia (CWP- 13411/2010) is also one of the working Directors of M/s Kamal Sponge Power & Steel Ltd-CWP-13272/2010. As regards petitioner- assessees (M/s Kaype Enterprises-CWP-13277/ 2010, Indu Ahluwalia-CWP-13280/2010, Prashant Ahluwalia-CWP-13299/ 2010 & Pawan Ahluwalia- CWP-13303/2010), KJS Ahluwalia might be representing their cases, as alleged by respondents but they all are individual assessees and nothing has been placed on record that these assessees at any point of time had authorized KJS Ahluwalia to represent or having executed any power of attorney for acting on their behalf to deal with IT cases regarding transfer of their assessments before the assessing officers or the Department of IT. Counsel for petitioners submits that show cause notice served upon individual petitioner (KJS Ahluwalia) was completely laconic and does not disclose reasons/ justification for which the Department of IT took decision to transfer their IT cases from Jaipur to Rourkela - in absence whereof, opportunity to submit objection pursuant to impugned notice served as required U/s 127(2) CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //6// of IT Act has been denied and their action is in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. Counsel further submits that the show cause notice was served only upon KJS Ahluwalia alone, and not upon individual assessee, thus the very proceedings initiated & the decision taken by the authority to transfer the cases of the assessee petitioner from Jaipur to Rourkela are not justifiable and deserves to be set aside. Counsel has further urged that order dt.26/09/2010 impugned is vitiated also on the premise of it having been passed under duress & pressure of Chief Commissioner of IT, Bhubneswar - though detailed correspondence in this regard has been placed on record by the respondents but it reflected that the authority competent has not applied its independent mind while taking decision impugned for transferring the cases of petitioners in exercise of powers U/s 127(2) of IT Act. Counsel further urged that respondent has utterly failed to establish any reasonable basis or cause for transferring their IT cases from the jurisdiction of respondent-4 to respondent-5, which according to him is in violation of powers vested in the assessing authority U/s 127(2)(a) & S.132 of IT Act. It CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //7// has been urged that the authority while taking decision for transferring cases has misrepresented the department about the facts. As regards petitioners (M/s Kaype Enterprises-CWP-13277/2010, Smt.Indu Ahluwalia CWP-13280/2010, Prashant Ahluwalia-CWP-13299/ 2010 and Pawan Ahluwalia-CWP-13303/2010), Counsel submits that they are individual assessees and no notice was individually served upon either of them and KJS Ahluwalia was never authorised by each of them to act on their behalf - in absence of serving notice and affording opportunity individually to the assessees (petitioners, ibid), the decision taken in transferring IT cases of these four petitioners is in clear violation of S.127(2) of IT Act. Counsel further submits that the power can be exercised U/s 127(2)(a) by the authority only after the agreement being arrived at between the assessing authority to whom such assessing officers are subordinate, the authority from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, and after recording reasons for doing so, may pass the order of transferring the cases; and according to Counsel, indisputably in instant cases, individual notice has not CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //8// been served upon these four petitioners, and their right of audience which is a cardinal principle of administrative law that no one should be condemned un-heard, has been violated and transferring their IT cases, has certainly caused prejudice and such action of respondents is also in violation of S.127(2) of IT Act. Counsel lastly urged that in the facts (supra), very process initiated by the authority from whose jurisdiction, cases are to be transferred and serving him a notice before passing final order in the facts of instant case was completely farce and in fact the decision impugned was taken by the higher authority to transfer the cases and the authority competent i.e. Commissioner in the instant case has not applied his independent mind while examining the objections raised by KJS Ahluwalia; thus in the facts of instant case, valuable right of petitioners submitting individual defence for being examined by the authority has become an empty formality and the decision communicated to the petitioner (KJS Ahluwalia) deserves to be set aside. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and it has been inter-alia averred that after the search operation being carried out U/s 132 of IT Act in cases of KJS CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //9// Ahluwalia group by investigation Unit at Bhubneshwar - in course whereof, huge evasion of tax & concealed assets came into notice of investigating unit and in these circumstances, to ensure co-ordinated investigation, proper assessment & non-evasion of tax, the proposal to centralize the cases pertaining to Ahluwalia group was made by ADIT (Inv.) Unit-I (1), Bhubneshwar. It has been averred that after the authorities competent were in agreement, Commissioner of IT Jaipur from whose jurisdiction cases were to be transferred, served a notice upon KJS Ahluwalia; however, whatever details having been referred to (supra) have never been raised while submitting objections inasmuch as he never raised any objection that he is not representing on behalf of other individual assessees of Ahluwalia group; contrarily, at all stages, reply & written objections were being submitted to the show cause notice served – details whereof have been placed on record which indicates that he was representing all the assessees being members of KJS Ahluwalia group and after affording opportunity of hearing as required by law, the authority finally took decision to transfer their cases assigning detailed reasons vide order impugned; and it is only after final CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //10// order being passed regarding centralization and transfer of cases of members of KJS Ahluwalia group, for the first time, in instant petitions, objection has been raised by other assessees that notices have not been individually served upon each of them and once KJS Ahluwalia appeared and contested on behalf of all the assessees (petitioners herein) of KJS Ahluwalia group be considered to be adequately represented and the notice being served upon KJS Ahluwalia may be treated to be notice being served upon all members of KJS Ahluwalia despite being individual assessees. Counsel for the Revenue subnmits that once KJS Ahluwalia represented on behalf of all other members of KJS Ahluwalia group, the requirement of S.127(2) was complied with made in its true spirit. Detailed correspondence has been placed on record to show the due application of mind of the competent authority regarding examining the objections submitted by KJS Ahluwalia were taken note of after comments being obtained from Commissioner/ Director of IT Bhubneshwar from whose jurisdiction cases were to be transferred, and after being satisfied, order was passed transferring the IT cases. Counsel for the Revenue further submits that compliance of statute provided CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //11// U/s 127(2) has been made and it is not the fundamental right of the assessee to be assessed at any particular place of having their principal place of business which has no nexus so far in regard to invoking powers U/s 127 of IT and the venue for assessment has to be governed by statute. Counsel submits that once the decision has been taken by competent authority to exercise powers in the interest of the Revenue and for proper adjudication of tax liability and collection whereof, action cannot be said to be arbitrary which may call for interference more so when the mandate of S.127(2)(a) has been complied with by the authority in its true spirit and the action being in conformity with law, it does not call for interference in limited scope of judicial review U/Art.226 of the Constitution. This Court has considered rival contentions advanced at the Bar and with their assistance, examined the material on record. Before dealing with contentions raised, it has been considered appropriate to have brief resume of provisions relevant for deciding controversy raised herein. S.124 of IT Act prescribes jurisdiction of assessing officer in respect of an assessee on the principles and grounds stated therein; whereas Section 127 is an exception to the provisions CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //12// contained in S.124. S.127(1) & (2) of IT Act ad infra: \"127. Power to transfer cases - (1) The Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) Where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //13// being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) Where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorize in this behalf. xxx xxx xxx Explanation : In Section 120 and this Section, the word \"case\", in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date of such order or direction in respect of any year.” S.127 as envisaged confers power to transfer cases of an assessee at the discretion of competent authority that it is necessary to do so after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and record of reasons for doing so. CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //14// However, such discretion is not guided nor controlled by provisions of S.124 which defines jurisdiction in normal circumstances while S.127 is attracted only when it is felt by the Commissioner or the Central Board of Direct Taxes or the authority competent and is a sequel to the aforesaid principle if the authority comes to the conclusion that it is in the interest of the Revenue or for proper adjudication of tax liability or collection thereof, then transferring IT case of an assessee can be ordered for facilitating the task of effective investigation and for best & co-ordinated assessment. However, it goes without saying that discretionary powers vested U/s 127(2) has to be exercised keeping in mind the in-built restraint that such an action should not be taken arbitrarily or for any extraneous reason or with malice but only with a view to get correct assessment of tax being computed wherein by & large, paramount considerations to be taken note of are that the choice of place where the cases are to be transferred is fully within the domain of transferring authority since the assessee can have no choice to ask for a particular officer or a particular place for the assessment to be made when power U/s 127(2) is to be exercised. Scope of S.5(7A) of IT Act, 1922 (Old CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //15// Act) being almost same corresponding provisions as contained in S.127 of IT Act,1961 was examined by Apex Court in Ajantha Industries Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes (1976 ITR Vol.102) p.281) and it was observed ad infra: \"The reason for recording of reasons in the order and making these reasons known to the assessee is to enable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution or even this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in an appropriate case for challenging the order, inter-alia either on the ground that it is based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Whether such a writ or special leave application ultimately fails is not relevant for a decision of the question.” “We are clearly of opinion that the requirement of recording reasons under section 127(1) is a mandatory direction under the law and non- communication thereof is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee.” Afore quoted principles have consistently followed by various High Courts regarding scope of S.127(1) & (2) of IT Act and what has been observed by Apex Court CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //16// clearly mandates that it is mandatory to record reasons since it is not a mere formality and contravention whereof being in violation of principles of natural justice on account of omission to communicate the reasons is not expiated. A series of decisions were cited by Counsel for the petitioners on the principle of reasons being not communicated under the order impugned passed U/s 127(2) of IT Act or reasonable opportunity of hearing being not afforded to the assessee or that final order not setting part of reasons for communicating to the assessee, the act in that eventuality was held to be bad in law and could not be said to be in conformity with statutory requirement as provided U/s 127(2) of IT Act. In a recent decision, Delhi High court in ATS Infrastructure Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009(318) ITR 299), had an occasion to examine scope of order passed by the authority in exercise of powers U/s 127(2) of IT Act and taking note of earlier judgments of Apex court and also of various High Court and it has been observed ad infra: “In this conspectus and analysis of the law it will be relevant to note that – firstly there is no fundamental right of an assesse to be assessed at a particular place. Under CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //17// Section 124 the assessment must be carried out at the principal place of business but when powers under Section 127 are invoked, territorial nexus becomes irrelevant. Secondly, the determination of the venue of the assessment would be governed by the greatest effectivity for collection of taxes. Thirdly, the decision to transfer cases cannot be capricious or malafide. If the venue is changed from year to year, or periodically for no apparent reason, it would not manifest an instance of exercise of power which is not available, but an example of an abuse of power in the manner in which it is exercised. Fourthly, whilst the convenience of the assessee should be kept in mind, it would always be subservient to the interests of adjudication and collection of taxes. “ When these tests are applied to the cases on hand, the decision to transfer the cases from Jaipur to Rourkela pursuant to order impugned dt.26/09/2010, in the opinion of this Court, becomes unassailable. The order finally passed by Commissioner of IT Jaipur (I) in exercise of powers U/s 127(2) of IT Act clearly indicates that after the first notice was served upon KJS Ahluwalia (petitioner), his objections were taken note of and sent to Commissioner of IT Sambalpur and after the reply was received, it was again sent to him CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //18// who again file reply raising further objections, which was again sent to the Commissioner of IT Sambalpur and Director of IT (Inv.), Bhubneshwar where search had taken place on 12/11/2009 and it was finally observed that main business activities of assessee is of iron ore mining being carried out at Rourkela in Orissa and none of brothers associated with mining activities of the group ordinarily resides at Jaipur and the day to day affairs of the iron mines are at Barbil and resides at Rourkela & Barbil in Orissa. The authority in the order impugned has summed up ad infra: (a) The main business activity of assessee is of Iron Ore Mining and same is being carried out mainly at Barbil (Orissa). (b) None of the brother associated with mining activities of the group ordinarily resides at Jaipur. Shri Prashant Ahluwalia who manages the day to day affairs of the iron mines at Barbil resides at Rourkela and Barbil in Orissa. (c) Huge expenditures under the head “Rejects Removal” has been claimed in the P & L account of the mining concerns and on examination of statements of some of the parties recorded u/s.131 and 133A of the I.T. Act., by the ADIT (Inv.), Unit-1 (1), Bhuneshwar put a question mark on the genuineness of these expenses CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //19// as some of the parties at Kolkata, Hyderabad and Bangalore, in whose names these expenses have been shown have denied to give services to the assessee and they have admitted that they have acted as entry provider only. The names of such parties are not disclosed here as the investigation/assessment is yet to be completed and disclosure may adversely affect the further proceedings of the department. The ADIT (inv.) has also given a chart in one case where the money channelized back to the one of the company of the assessee in form of share application. (d) Therefore, keeping in view of the above nature of discrepancies the physical inspection of mines and enquiries from various parties in whose name the expenses specifically “Removal of Rejects” have been books, would be required to be verified by assessing officer and it would be extremely difficult for assessing officer at Jaipur to conduct such enquiries/inspection. (e) Further statements of key employees of Ahluwalia group in Orissa located in Orissa have been recorded during the investigation which will have immense importance in the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer may require to re- examine or allow cross examination of the same persons during the assessment stage and in that event, it would be highly disadvantageous CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //20// for the A.O. at Jaipur due to jurisdiction constraints. Further the Assessing Officer at Jaipur cannot personally examine on oath the key witness in the case under section 131 of the IT Act due to lack of jurisdiction beyond the limits envisaged in the Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908. The same difficulty may arise if it becomes imperative to examine other local persons who have aided in the tax evasion scheme, thus hampering the progress of investigation which ultimately would effect adversely passing of judicially sustainable assessment order. On the contrary, if the AO is located in Orissa, he will not come across such difficulties.” The reasons aforesaid were recorded by the authority after affording an opportunity of hearing indisputably to KJS Ahluwalia and after taking note of the comments made available on record, the competent authority being satisfied took its decision to transfer IT cases from Jaipur to Rourkela. However, it is also not the case of petitioner (KJS Ahluwalia) that the order has been passed by the authority for extraneous consideration or with ulterior motive; on the contrary, the decision impugned has been taken by the authority keeping in view the object of the enactment - in absence of there having any CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //21// material on record imputing malice or irrelevant considerations or ulterior motive on the part of the authority for having arbitrarily transferred the cases in exercise of powers U/s 127 of IT Act, this Court after having gone through the record does not find any manifest error being committed which may call for interference. As stated (supra), indisputably notice was addressed to KJS Ahluwalia and served upon him only for transferring IT cases of other members of Ahluwalia group who are indeed individual assessees. It is available from record that KJS Ahlluwalia is one of active Director of M/s Kamal Sponge Power & Steel Ltd. (CWP-13272/ 2010), M/s Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia (CWP-13410/2010 - proprietory Firm) besides being individual assessee as KJS Ahluwalia (CWP-13411/2010) and is representing on their behalf in these three writ petitions, ibid and atleast notice served upon him can be construed to be notice served upon assessees (KJS Ahluwalia, M/s Kamal Sponge & Power Steel and M/s Kamalajeet Singh Ahluwalia); and opportunity of hearing being afforded regarding these troika assessees ibid, while the authority passed order impugned dt. 26/09/2010. At the same time, it has not been CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //22// controverted by the respondents authority that the notice to the assessees (Pawan Ahluwalia (CWP-13303/2010), Prashant Ahluwalia (CWP- 13299/2010), Smt.Indu Ahluwalia (CWP-13280/ 2010) & M/s Kaypee Enterprises (CWP-13277/ 2010) despite individual assessees, was never served and at no point of time, they were called upon at any stage in regard to centralization & transfer of their IT cases from Jaipur to Rourkela. Whereas the defence of respondents authority that Kamlajeet S. Ahluwalia was always representing all the assesses; as such no individual notice to the assessees was required to be served. In the opinion of this Court, in absence of material on record about authorizing Kamaljeet S.Ahluwalia to represent on behalf of other assesses named supra; or holding power of attorney on their behalf and they being individual assesses, their rights are seriously prejudiced in the absence of notice being individually served and opportunity of hearing being afforded to each of them, which is a mandate of law U/s 127(2) of IT Act, the very order impugned regarding transfer of IT cases qua petitioners named (supra) is held to be not sustainable and deserves to be aside. Consequently, CWP-13277/2010(M/s Kaype CW 13411/10 (IT-Transfer-S.127) //23// Enterprises), CWP-13280/2010 (Indu Ahluwalia), CWP-13299/2010 (Prashant Ahluwalia) & CWP- 13303/2010 (Pawan Ahluwalia) are allowed and impugned order dt.26/09/2010 qua each of them is quashed & set aside; however it would not preclude the respondents, if advised, to initiate proceedings regarding transfer of their IT cases, according to law,. However, CWP-13411/2010 (Kamal Jeet Singh Ahluwalia), CWP-13410/2010 (M/s Kamal Jeet Singh Ahluwalia), & CWP-13272/2010 (M/s Kamal Sponge Power & Steel Ltd) fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p23/ 13411CW2011(7)RsrJanFeb-ITxTrns.doc "