Allowing the petition the Court held that Centralisation Committee is not the authority, envisaged u/s 127(2).The Revenue has not placed anything on record to show that CCIT, Pune has given consent to request of CCIT (Central), Mumbai so as to constitute agreement as a pre-condition for invoking powers u/s 127. “Absence of dissenting note” from officer of equal rank who has to agree to the proposed transfer would not constitute agreement, envisaged u/s. 123(2)(a). Thus, the impugned order was without jurisdiction.
Dilip Tanaji Kashid v. M.L. Karmakar Principal CIT (2018) 169 DTR 319 / 304 CTR 436 (Bom)( HC)
S. 127 : Power to transfer cases-Transfer of case from Kolhapur to Mumbai – “Centralisation Committee” which took decision for transfer of jurisdiction, is not authority envisaged u/s 127(2)- Absence of dissenting note” from officer of equal rank who has to agree to proposed transfer would not constitute agreement, envisaged u/s 123(2)(a)–Transfer order was quashed. [S. 123(2)(a), 127(2)]