The assessee challenged before the High Court the transfer of its case from Mumbai to New Delhi under section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the order lacked reasons and that there was no agreement between the jurisdictional Commissioners. The Court noted that the order clearly recorded reasons, namely, centralisation of group cases at Delhi for effective co-ordinated investigation to safeguard revenue interests, and that such centralisation was for a limited period until completion of assessment, followed by decentralisation. The objections raised by the assessee were duly considered and clarifications obtained from the Delhi Commissioner. Both the Mumbai and Delhi Principal Commissioners had communicated and agreed to the transfer proposal, with due opportunity of hearing afforded to the assessee. The Court held that convenience of the assessee was subordinate to the larger interest of centralised investigation, and modern technology obviated hardship of physical travel. Since the transfer order was supported by reasons and statutory compliance, there was no infirmity warranting interference under article 226. SLP of assessee dismissed. (AY. 2022-23)
Laxminath Investment and Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2025) 474 ITR 7/ 174 taxmann.com 55 (SC) Editorial : Laxminath Investment and Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 474 ITR 1/ 174 taxmann.com 54 (Bom)(HC)
S. 127 : Power to transfer cases-Transfer of case for effective co-ordinated investigation to avoid loss of revenue-Transfer order stating adequate reasons and centralisation for limited period until conclusion of assessment according to norms and decentralisation thereafter-Communications between transferor and transferee jurisdictional Commissioners indicating their agreement-Assessee given opportunity of hearing-No infirmity in transfer order-Interference in writ jurisdiction not warranted-SLP of assessee dismissed, [S. 127(2), Art. 136]