Dismissed¶12

Smt. Lalhmangaihzuali v. Union of India and 10 Ors.

Gauhati HC22 Mar 2026WP(C)/98/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 127(2) Income Tax Act transfer of assessing jurisdiction; reasonable opportunity to be heard natural justice in case-transfer orders; agreement/mutual consensus between Principal Commissioners required; Noorul Islam Educational Trust (2017) 12 SCC 805; Section 271DA penalty Rs. 2,88,03,970; Section 246A appeal pending bars parallel writ proceedings; disputed questions of fact oust writ jurisdiction under Article 226; laches/delayed filing 21.08.2025; summons under Section 131(1A); investigation by DDIT (Investigation) Unit-2(1); PAN centralization DCIT Central Circle-1 Guwahati; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; interim order vacated; costs borne by parties.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the petitioner; parties left to bear their own costs and the interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

Smt. Lalhmangaihzuali Vs Union of India and 10 Ors. — Income Tax | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief to the petitioner; parties left to bear their own costs and the interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 25.02.2025 passed under Section 127(2) of the IT Act transferring the petitioner's case is sustainable without the petitioner having been given an opportunity to be heard, as alleged by her. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The requirement of agreement between the Commissioners for transfer under Section 127(2) was satisfied: the order was passed as per the proposal received from PCIT (Central), Guwahati, indicating a mutual consensus between the PCIT, Shillong and the PCIT (Central), Guwahati for transferring the case, consistent with the principle in Noorul Islam Educational Trust (supra) that an agreement is a must for transfer of a case.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, having acted promptly in appealing the penalty order but having approached the Court on the transfer order only on 21.08.2025, ought to have availed of the available remedy without waste of time; her late response weighed against granting relief and the writ petition was found devoid of merit.

¶10

Key takeaways

If a dispute were raised regarding the correctness of the e-mail said to record the petitioner's no objection, it would amount to disputed questions of fact ousting writ jurisdiction; however, the Court found it unnecessary to proceed on that basis.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Nelson Sailo, J.), order dated 23.03.2026 in WP(C)/98/2025: writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 dismissed. The petitioner challenged (i) the order dated 25.02.2025 under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 transferring her case from ITO Ward-1, Silchar to DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati, alleging denial of the opportunity to be heard, and (ii) a penalty order dated 26.03.2025 under Section 271DA imposing Rs. 2,88,03,970/-, the latter challenge not being pressed as an appeal under Section 246A was pending. On the transfer order, the Court held that the requirement of agreement between the Commissioners (per Noorul Islam Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax I & Ors., (2017) 12 SCC 805) stood satisfied: the order was passed on the proposal of PCIT (Central), Guwahati dated 05.02.2025, evidencing mutual consensus between PCIT, Shillong and PCIT (Central), Guwahati. Although the counter affidavit disclosed a reply e-mail dated 25.02.2025 (05.46 pm) stating no objection for centralization of her PAN while the order recited non-receipt of any response, the Court declined to adjudicate that point, observing that a dispute over the e-mail would raise disputed questions of fact ousting writ jurisdiction. The petitioner's delayed recourse to the writ forum (petition filed 21.08.2025) contrasted with her promptness on the penalty appeal and told against her. Petition dismissed; parties to bear their own costs; interim order vacated.

¶1

Page No.# 1/11

¶2

GAHC030008682025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/98/2025

¶5

Smt. Lalhmangaihzuali C/o Malsawma R/o H. No. A 24/1 Near Presbyterian Church Armed Veng N Aizawl-796008 Mizoram

¶6

VERSUS Union of India and 10 Ors. through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Govt. of India having its office at Central Secretariat North Block

¶7

New Delhi 2:Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Shillong having its office at Aayakar Bhawan Mahatma Gandhi Road Shillong Meghalaya Pin Code - 793001 3:Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Shillong having its office a Aayakar Bhawan Mahatma Gandhi Road

¶8

Page No.# 2/11

¶9

Shillong Meghalaya Pin Code - 793001

¶10

4:Income Tax Officer Ward - 1

¶11

Silchar Income Tax Office Cr Building Circuit House Road Silchar Assam PIN - 788001

¶12

5:Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

¶13

Guwahati having its office at Aayakar Bhawan Christian Basti G.S. Road Guwahati

¶14

Assam Pin Code - 781005 6:Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1

¶15

Guwahati having its office at Aayakar Bhawan Christian Basti G.S. Road Guwahati

¶16

Assam Pin Code - 781005

¶17

7:Principal Director of Income Tas (Investigation) N.E.R Unit-2(1) having its office at Room No. 401 Aayakar Bhawan G.S. Road

¶18

Christian Basti Guwahati - 781005

¶19

8:Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)

¶20

Page No.# 3/11

¶21

Unit-2(1) Room No. 429 4th Floor Aayakar Bhawan Christian Basti G.S.Road Guwahati Assam Pin Code - 781005

¶22

9:Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

¶23

Central Guwahati Room No - 501 Aayakar Bhawan G.S.Road Christian Basti Guwahati - 781005

¶24

10:Commissioner of Income Tas (Appeals) Central N.E.R Guwahati having its office at Room No. 624 Aayakar Bhawan G.S.Road Christian Basti Guwahati - 781005 11:State of Mizoram represented through Public Prosecutor

¶25

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram for R 11

¶26

Page No.# 4/11

¶27

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶28

ORDER

¶29

23.03.2026

¶30

Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax for the respondent Nos. 2 to 10.

¶31

2. The petitioner has invoked Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in filing the instant writ petition praying for interference of this Court on the Order dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) whereby, the jurisdiction of the petitioner’s case has been transferred from ITO Ward-1, Silchar to DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati. The petitioner has also challenged the Order dated 26.03.2025 passed under Section 271DA of the IT Act, by which penalty of Rs. 2,88,03,970/- has been imposed on the Assessee. Additionally, the petitioner has also sought for quashing and setting aside the investigation proceedings including summons issued under Section 131 (1A) of the IT Act being carried out by the respondent No. 8 qua the petitioner.

¶32

3. At the outset, Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel submits that in so far as Order of Penalty dated 26.03.2025 is concerned, the petitioner would

¶33

Page No.# 5/11

¶34

not pressing the same since an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner

¶35

under Section 246A of the IT Act and the same is pending as on date.

¶36

4. The issue to be considered in the instant case therefore is as to whether the Order dated 25.02.2025 passed under Section 127(2) of the IT Act would be sustainable without the petitioner having been given the opportunity to be heard as alleged by the petitioner.

¶37

5. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel by referring to Section 127(2) (a) of the IT Act submits that the prior to transferring the case from one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer, there has to be an agreement between the Principal Commissioner or Commissioners to whom the Assessing Officers are sub-ordinate to and further, reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be given to the Assessee whenever it is possible to do so and only after that and by recording the reasons for doing so, an order can be passed transferring the case. He submits that from a perusal of the impugned Order dated 25.02.2025, it can be seen that the Order of Transfer was passed on the ground that no objection was received from the petitioner. Referring to the Communication dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure - 4), the learned counsel submits that a notice was issued, informing the petitioner about the proposal to pass an order under Section 127 of the IT Act for transferring of the case and for which,

¶38

Page No.# 6/11

¶39

the petitioner was given five (5) days time from the date of receipt of the notice. However, the impugned Order came to be passed just the next day purportedly on the ground that there was a modification of the notice by which she was granted time up to 15:00 hours of 25.02.2025 to give her response. Under the circumstance, the learned counsel submits that the impugned Order of Transfer being in clear violation of the principles of natural justice as provided in the provision itself, the same may be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the case of Noorul Islam Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax I & Ors. reported in (2017) 12 SCC 805.

¶40

6. The learned counsel also submits that if the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had sent an e-mail agreeing to the transfer is to be accepted, the same should have been reflected in the Order dated 25.02.2025. However, it rather states that no objection was called from the petitioner but the same was not received from her till the date of passing of the Order. He submits that even on this ground, the impugned Order dated 25.02.2025 is not sustainable and should be set aside.

¶41

7. Mr. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax on the other hand submits that in so far as the challenge sought to be made to the Order of Penalty dated 26.03.2025 passed under Section 271DA of the IT Act, the

¶42

Page No.# 7/11

¶43

petitioner has already availed the remedy available by filing an appeal under Section 246A of the IT Act, which is pending till date and therefore, parallel proceedings not being permissible as per the established principles of law, the writ petition in so far as the challenged sough to be made to the Order of Penalty should not be entertained and be rejected by this Court. In so far as the challenged made to the Order passed under Section 127(2) of the IT Act on 25.02.2025, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the authority concerned acted within his power to pass the order. He submits that the petitioner indeed was given an opportunity on the proposed transfer as can be seen from the letter dated 24.02.2025, which invited objection from the petitioner within a time frame. However, considering the fact that a Show Cause Notice had earlier been issued by the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Shillong on 11.02.2025 for compliance of DIN & Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1073634857(1), the notice issued on 24.01.2025 was amended to the effect that objection, if any, should reach the Issuing Authority by 15:00 hours of 25.02.2025. It was also indicated that personal appearance was not required and online submission of objection would be acceptable and considered. Accordingly, the e-mail i.d for giving a response to the communication was also provided. He submits that in response to the same, the petitioner vide a reply e-mail communicated that she has no objection for centralization of her PAN. Under the circumstance, the

¶44

Page No.# 8/11

¶45

Order of Transfer dated 25.02.2025 is in order. He also submits that the Order of Transfer was passed as agreed to by the authorities concerned and the same has clearly been reflected in the order itself, which says that the order was passed as per the proposal received from PCIT (Central), Guwahati vide letter dated 05.02.2025. He therefore submits that the writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed.

¶46

8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record.

¶47

9. As already indicated herein above, the issue to be considered is as to whether the Order dated 25.02.2025 passed under Section 127(2) of the IT Act, can be sustained. The Order is an order by which the case has been transferred from ITO Ward-1, Silchar to DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati. The impugned Order also mentions that the Order is passed as per the proposal received from PCIT (Central), Guwahati vide letter dated 05.02.2025 and also as per the instructions received and the satisfaction arrived that centralization of the case at DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati is necessary for the purpose of coordinated investigation and to examine all the interlinking evidences gathered in the case. The impugned Order further states that vide Letters dated 24.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 objections, if any, was called from the Assessee i.e., the petitioner

¶48

Page No.# 9/11

¶49

but there was no response till the date of the Order and therefore, it was presumed that the Assessee has no objection to the proposed transfer. Accordingly, the Order was issued and which came into force with immediate effect. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 10 however shows that a reply or response was made by the petitioner via e-mail wherein, she had written that she has no objection for centralization of her PAN. The date of the e-mail is 25.02.2025 and timing is 05.46 pm.

¶50

10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as per the instructions received from his client, she is not aware about the e-mail that was sent as projected by the respondents and moreover, even if the mail was sent as alleged, the same ought to have been reflected in the Order of Transfer. The Order of Transfer otherwise states that no response was received from the Assessee/the petitioner. On this issue, one may take note of the fact that the proceeding before this Court is a writ proceeding wherein, the disputes are decided on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties concerned unlike the civil court wherein, evidences are adduced, oral and documentary. Therefore, if a dispute is raised as regards the correctness or otherwise of the e-mail that has been sent, the same would mean that there are disputed questions of fact and for which, the jurisdiction of a writ court would be ousted on this ground. However, this Court is of the considered view that one need not go to that

¶51

Page No.# 10/11

¶52

extent for the simple reason that the impugned Order had been passed on 25.02.2025 and pursuant to which, an Order of Penalty had also been passed on 26.03.2025 under Section 271DA of the IT Act. The petitioner on the other hand has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition only on 21.08.2025. In other words, if the petitioner was truly aggrieved with the impugned Order dated 25.02.2025 and disagreed with the fact of having given consent to the transfer of the case, the petitioner ought to have availed of the remedy available in law without waste of time. In so far as the Order of Penalty is concerned, it is not in dispute that an appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the Appellate forum. It can be seen that the petitioner has been prompt to seek recourse to the remedy available unlike the late response to the Order passed for transfer of the case.

¶53

11. The case of Noorul Islam Educational Trust (supra), has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein, the Supreme Court has held that an agreement is a must for transfer of case. In the present case, it may be noticed that order has been passed as per the proposal received from the PCIT (Central), Guwahati and therefore, it can be understood that there was a mutual consensus between the PCIT, Shillong and the PCIT (Central), Guwahati for transferring the case from one Assessee Officer to the other.

¶54

Page No.# 11/11

¶55

12. Thus, upon due consideration of the case projected by the petitioner, this Court does not find merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly

¶56

dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

¶57

13. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

Comparing Assistant

Smt. Lalhmangaihzuali v. Union of India and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lalhmangaihzuali v. Union of India and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. H. Lalnunzira Vs Smt. Vanlalthlengliani and 2 Ors.

Smt. R. Lalthanpari Vs Smt. Laltlanpari

Sh. Lalthavela Vs Smt. Ramengzuali and 2 Ors.

Sh. Lalrozara and 10 Ors. Vs State of Mizoram and 8 Ors.

Sh. Rotluanga Vs The State of Mizoram and 8 Ors.

Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong and 7 Ors. Vs Mrs. Lalhmangaihzuali and 3 Ors.