Dismissed¶131

Shreeji Foods Private Limited v. Union of India

Telangana HC11 Jul 2025WP/18985/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 127 Income Tax Act 1961 transfer of assessment case; change of jurisdiction Hyderabad to Delhi; DCIT Central Circle-20 New Delhi; reasonable opportunity of hearing vs personal hearing; rank of proposing officer (Chief Commissioner) and accepting officer (Principal Commissioner) Section 127(2)(a); sufficient reasons recorded in transfer order; coordinated investigation; search and seizure 11.10.2023; SAIL group; CBDT guidelines and circulars; transfer order acted upon; assessment completed 27.03.2025 and appealed to CIT(Appeals); writ petitions Article 226 Telangana High Court 2025; dismissal without costs; Shreeji Foods Private Limited; Damani Directors.

What did the court decide?

None (writ petitions dismissed; no costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed) ¶131

Shreeji Foods Private Limited Vs Union of India — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None (writ petitions dismissed; no costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed)

¶131

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2 transferring the petitioners' assessment proceedings from Hyderabad to Delhi is without jurisdiction, void, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. +4 more

¶51

Court's answer

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, no strong case was made out by the petitioners' counsel calling for interference with the impugned order.

¶120

Ratio / Principle

The Court found it difficult to accept the challenge to the transfer order by way of the instant writ petitions at this juncture, since the petitioners had permitted the assessing officer at the transferred place to proceed, the order had been acted upon and taken to its logical conclusion for one assessment year, and the assessment order had been challenged before CIT(Appeals) where the appeal is pending.

¶77

Key takeaways

Section 127 only mandates giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing; it does not anywhere enshrine granting of a personal hearing. Since an opportunity of hearing was admittedly given, to which the petitioners responded, the first objection fails.ratio¶83
Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 127, the opportunity of hearing has to be given only wherever it is possible to do so; otherwise the granting of the opportunity of hearing can also be skipped or waived.ratio¶83
Clause (a) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 127 does not require the two officers (proposer and acceptor) to be of the same rank; read pragmatically, it only indicates which officer can propose and which officer can accept the proposal for transfer.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (P. Sam Koshy & Narsing Rao Nandikonda JJ.; common order per Koshy J.) dismissed W.P. Nos. 18985 & 19007 of 2025 filed by Shreeji Foods Private Limited and its Directors Dhawal Rajnikant Damani and Shamir Rajnikant Damani challenging the PCIT Hyderabad-1 order dated 27.01.2025 (Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1072556157(1)) transferring their assessments from Hyderabad to DCIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search on the group (11.10.2023) and alleged SAIL-group connections. Held: (i) Section 127 mandates a reasonable opportunity of hearing, not a personal hearing; opportunity was given and objections filed; (ii) Clause (a) of Section 127(2) does not require the proposing and accepting officers to be of the same rank - proposal by Chief Commissioner, Delhi and acceptance by Principal Commissioner satisfied Clause (a); (iii) reasons were recorded in paras 3.1-3.2 of the order (unaccounted cash found in search; centralisation of group cases for coordinated investigation per CBDT guidelines); (iv) the transfer order stood substantially acted upon, assessment for one year was completed on 27.03.2025 and challenged before CIT(Appeals), so interference at this juncture was unwarranted; the Directors' petition fared no differently. Relied on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Union of India & Ram Charan Agamale (Chhattisgarh DB) and Kamal Nath v. Pr. CIT Kolkata (High Court at Kolkata); followed this Court's Akshara Enterprises decision. Dismissed without costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

13447 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAYOF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRt JUSTICEP.SAM KOSHY} AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE NARSINGRAO NANDIKONDA}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS: 18985^{AND 19007 0F 2025}

¶8

w.P No.18985 ot 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Shreeii Foods Private Limited,^{A company registered under the lndian companies} niji, i6SO-r"O naving^{its registered offi6e ai 6-7-89, CottageNo. 2 Opp. Bible,House,} eu;ritri-p"i-n-p^{Hoad, -l-iyderabad-500003,Telangana and represented by its} I,lino;ruO-.ignatory^{and Director Mr. Dhawal Rajnikant Damani, Age about 53} years.

¶11

.....PETITtONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Union of lndia, Rep by^{its Secretary, Department of Revenue,Ministryof} Finance, North Block, New^{Delhi-1 10001.}

¶14

2 Office of the Principal^{Commissioner of lncome Tax,PCIT,Hyderabad-l,} noom f.fo. 711 ,7th Floor^{A Block,I T Tower' AC Guards, Masab Tank,} Hyderabad, Telangana-500004.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or^{Direction more particularlyin the natureof a writ} of Mandamus declaring^{the lmpugned Orderdated 27 'O1 2025bearing DIN and} order No. ITBtuCOM/F/1^{712024-25t1072556157(1)passedby the Respondent} No. 2 as being without iurisdiction,^{void, illegal, arbitrary, violativeof Article'14 of} the Constitution of^{lndia and also violativeof Section 127 of lhe lncome TaxAct,} 1961

¶17

|.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition Under Section 15'l CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{HighCourtm ay be pleased to stay} the lmpugned Order dated 27.01 .2025 bearing^{Dlhl and Order No.} ITBA/COM/F/1 712024-2511072556157(1)^passed by^{the Respondent No 2 and} consequently stay all further^proceedings and^{actionsincluCing collection of tax} pursuant to the lmpugned Order.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS,^{LEART'IEDSENIOR} COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI V.ANEESH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. B.SAPNA REDDY,^{LEAIRNEDSENIOR} STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶21

W.P.NO:19007 OF 2025

¶22

Between:

¶23

1 Mr. Dhawal Rajnikant Damani, S/o Late Mr. Rajnikant Di:mant,^{Aged about 53} years, Occ. Director of Shreeji Foods Private Limited, Rro Plot No. 14, Happy Enclave Society Balamrai, Secunderabad - 500003.

¶24

2 Mr. Shamir Rajnikant Damani, S/o Late Mr. Rajnikant Dt:mani, Aged^about51 years, Occ. DirecOktor of Shreeji Foods Private Limited, R/o Plot No.^14, Happy Enclave Society Balamrai, Secunderabad - 500013

¶25

.....PETITIONERS

¶26

AND

¶27

'l . Union of lndia, Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Bloc, New Delhi-l 10001.

¶28

Office of the Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, PCIT, Hyderabad-l, Room No.711,7th FloorABlock, lT Tower, AC Guards MasabTank, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004.

¶29

.,...RESPONDENTS

¶30

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiir^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^{Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more^particularly irr the nature of^a Writ of Mandamus declaring the lmpugned Order^{dated 27.01 .2Ct25bearing DIN and} Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712024-2511072556157(1)^{passedby the Respondent} No. 2 as being without^{jurisdiction,} void, illegal,^{arbitrary, vio ativeof Article 14 of}

¶31

the Constitution of lndia and also violative of^{Section 127 of the lncomeTax Act,} 196'1 .

¶32

|.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶33

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to stay} the lmpugned Order dated 27.O1.2025^bearing 'DlN^{and OrderNo.} ITBA/COM/F/I 712024-2511072556157(1)^passed by^{the Respondent No. 2 and} consequently stay all further^proceedings and actions^{including collection of tax} pursuant to the lmpugned Order.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS,^{LEARNED SENIOR} COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI V.ANEESH

¶35

Counsel forthe Respondents : Ms. B.SAPNA REDDY,^{LEARNED SENIOR} STANOING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶36

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

¶37

THE HONOURAALE SRI WSTICE P.SAIVTKOSHY

¶38

¶39

AND

¶40

TIIE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NAITDIKONDA

¶41

Writ Petition No.18985 of 2d25

¶42

and

¶43

Writ Petitioa No.19OO7 of 2o25

¶44

COMMON ORDER:(per Hon'bte Sri Justice P.SA.[ rOSJtI)

¶45

Since the issue arising in the instant writ petitions is one and the sEune, we proceed to decide the instant petitions by this Common Order

¶46

Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, Iearned S,:nior Counsel representing Mr.V. Aneesh, learned counsel for Lhe petitioners, in both the urit petitions; and Ms. B.Sapna [iedd-v, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, for the respondents, in both the writ petitions.

¶47

Writ Petition No. 18985 of 2025 is filed by the petitionerCompany under Article 226 of the Constitution ol lndia praying the Court to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inrpugned order

¶48

dated 27.OI.2O25 bearing DIN & Order

¶49

¶50

wP_18985&19OO7_2025 PSK,J & I{NR,J

¶51

No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2o24-2s/to72s56157(1) passed by respondent No.2 as being without jurisdiction, void, illegal, arbitrary, rriolative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violation of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and Writ Petition No.19OO7 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners (Directors of Shreeji Foods Private Limited) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/COM/F /17 1202425/1072556157(1) (for short, 'the impugned order') passed by respondent No.2 as being without jurisdiction, void, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violate of Section I27 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act')

¶52

Vide the impugned order, the respondents have transferred the assessment proceedings of the petitioners outside the State, i.e., from Hyderabad it has been ordered to be transferred to Delhi.

¶53

¶54

wp_18985&19OO7_2025 PSK,J & NNR,J

¶55

4rqE !tlll-.ratt4+ s_

¶56

l,earned Senior Counsel appearing^{for the petitioners} canvassed primarily three^{grounds to assail the above impugned} order, itz.,^(a) denial of a^{fair opportunity of hearing as is} required under Section¹²⁷ of^{the Act; (b) the irapugned order} dated 27.01.2025 being technically^{and proce'1urallyflawed} inasmuch as the Officer who has^{proposed for transferringthe} frle from Hyderabad to Dethi is of^{the r'mk ofChief} Commissioner whereas the Officer^{who has a66r:pted the said} proposal and has agreed for the transfer^{is an Officer of the ralk} of Principal Commissioner; thus, it^{is in contraventionof the} provisions of Section 127(21(al of the Act;^{and (c) no sufficient} reasons have been have^{been disclosedto the pelitionersbefore} transferring the file from^{Hyderabadto Delhi.}

¶57

In support of his contentions,^{learned SeniorCounsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitionersreliedon the following} decisions rendered by different^{Courts, viz., Noorul Islam} Educational Trust vs. Commlgsioaer of^{lncome Tax-Ir;} Herambh Anandrao Shelke vs.^M.L-Karmakar Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-22;^{AchhqfaSecurities}

¶58

'(zotz)^{rz s.c.c. gos}

¶59

'l2018^{scc online Bom2109}

¶60

¶61

wP_18985&19OO7_2025 PSK,J & IIN&J

¶62

Private Limited vs. Union of ladiaa; Kamal Veraadmal Galani vs Principal Coamissioner of lacome Tax-19a; and Shilshana Prasaraka Mandali vs. The Commissioner of lncome Taxs.

¶63

On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, appearing for the respondents, opposing the petitions, contended that the impugned order, when it is read as a whole, would by itself reveal that the order is strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 127 , and that all the parameters enshrined ttrerein have been met and that ttrere are no violations whatsoever of any^provisions of the Act in the course of passing of the transfer order. Lastly,^she contended that the impugeed order is one which has^been passed in January, 2025 and immediately thereafter the said order was acted upon and the assessing officer to whom the matter stood transferred also has initiated proceedings and has findized the same and the Assessment Year for one of the years has also been completed vide order dated 27.03.2025; and as such, it would not be proper, Iegal and justifred to interfere with

¶64

t2024 ,AHc : 40018-DB (Atlahabad High court)

¶65

o (zoz+) +oo lTn gao (Bombay]

¶66

s Writ Petition No.2634 of 2012, dated 05.03.2013 (High Court of Judicature at Eombay)

¶67

:;i?:

¶68

5::

¶69

wP_189,85&19OO7_2025 PSK,J & NNR,J ,la..l|.ftik?.+ --^{- 5-si.*rr]*i!t-.} the impugned order of transfer which already stands substantially acted upon by the respondents and to be interdicted at this^juncture, and therefore prayed lor dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶70

r ,.

¶71

Having heard the contentions put forth on^,:ither side and ona perusal of the records, particularly taking into consideration the submissions which have been p,essed on either side, the facts that reveal in the course of hearing are that admittedly the impugned order of transfer is one which was passed on27.O7.2O25; admittedly, the said impul3ned order has also been acted upon and there does not seem to be any strong ground produced before this Court by the petitior-rers as to why the impugrred order of transfer was not promptly challenged by the petitioners if at all they were aggrieved of the proceedings at that point of time. Further, anottrer fact which is revealed is that though the petitioners have filed their formal objection in respect of the transfer being made, they did not pursue it any further and permitted the assessment^proceedinlls to conclude at the transferred place, i.e., Delhi.^{Anotheraspe(rtwhich needs} consideration is that the assessment^{order was passed for} one of the years ort 27.03.2025 and the said assessmerrt'order has also

wP_18985&19OO7_2025 PSK,J &NNR,J

¶76

been challenged by availing tJ:re statutory remedy of^appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax^(Appeals). The^said appeal has also been frled before the^{jurisdictionalappellate} authorit5r and the appeal is still^{pending consirleration.}

¶77

Given the fact that the petitioners have already^permitted the Assessing Offrcer at the transferred^place to^{proceedwith the} impugrred order and the said impugned order^{having been acted} upon by the respondents and had been taken to its^logical conclusion for one of the assessment^{years, we} find^it diffrcult^to accept tJle contention raised by the^{petitionersherein} challenging the aforesaid order of transfer^{by way of instant writ} petitions at this juncture. The aforesaid conduct of^the petitioners by itsetf forces this Bench to draw an^inference that tJre petitioners do not have a strong objection^{on the transfer} being so made at that^point of^{time and now when the impugned} assessment order for'one of the^years having^{beenpassed, the} petitioners seem to have become wiser and now wants to stall the further proceedings on the assessment initiated^{by the} authorities which substantially stands acted upon by^the respondents.

¶78

¶79

wP_18985&19OO7-2025 PSK,J & NIIR,J

¶80

¶81

) '- zfrtir+!i*? -$-!*,

¶82

Coming to the merits of the^{case, a plain reading of the} impugned order (particularly^{paragraphNo.3 therein) wouldgo} to show that the petitioners^were in fact^{issue Iwith a notice} before the impugned order was^{passed, and that the notice} issued was one that was sent^{as early as on 2 .O3 -2024. The} impugned order also reflects^that it^{was duly serr/edon the} petitioners, and the petitioners have also^{filed their response} thereto by raising objections on the^{proposedtransfer. This} aspect is not disputed by the learned^{Senior (lounsel for tJle} petitioners. However, he contended that the^{respondents ought} to have given an opportunit5r of^{personalhearing rs well.}

¶83

Section¹²⁷ (ll only mandates^{giving zm assessee a} reasonable opportunity of hearing. It^{does not anywhere} enshrine granting of personal hearing.^{Moreovr:r, Sub-Section} (1) of Section 127 would also show that this oppo:-tunity^{also has} to be given only wherever it is^possibleto do^{so ri'hich otherwise} would mean that, if it were not^{possible,the granting of art} opportunity of hearing cal also^{be skipped or wairred.}

¶84

L2. In the instant case, admittedly^{an opportunityof hearing} was given to which ttre petitioners have^{respondeCto. Thus, the}

¶85

+-r

¶86

¶87

wP_18985&19OO7-2025 PSK,J & NIIR J

¶88

frst objection of the petitioners assailing the impugned order does not find force and the same is negated.

¶89

As regards the Officer proposing and the Officer accepting the proposal of transfer being of different ralk, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the provisions of Sections 127(21 and 127(21(al, both of which for ready reference is being reproduced as under, viz.,

¶90

" L27l2l -Where the Assessing Oflicer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing OIEcer or Assessing Ollicers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner -

¶91

(a) Where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Offr.cers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Director General or Chief Comrnissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in th.e matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order."

¶92

L4. A plain reading of Clause (a) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 127 would go to show that Clause (a) does not require of the two oflicers to be of the same rarrk ratller if we read it with a pragmatic view it only indicates as to which of the officers who

¶93

¶94

'j;if,a: i u: :t.'-i ,. 3.i: {r:rri Flar"

¶95

wP_18985&19OO7-2025 PSK,J & NI{R,J

¶96

.'r r,rrs':grlarrlrtarjdr {r^I ! -

¶97

can propose and who can accept the proposal for transfer. Now, when we see that the proposal has come liom the Chief Commissioner, Delhi and acceptance has beett made by the Principal Commissioner, it would meet the recuirement as is meant under Clause (a). Hence, the second objt:ction raised by the learned Senior Counsel does not find force t,y this Court to interdict the impugned transfer order.

¶98

Coming to the third ground as regards the sufficient reasons not being disclosed in the course of passrng of the order of transfer, this Court is only quoting paragraph l{os.3.1 and 3.2 of the impugned which would clearly give the rea.sons for which there was a request for the transfer to be made, rvhich for ready reference they are reproduced as under, viz.,

¶99

"3.1 The assesses, M/s.Shreeji Foods Pvt. Ltd., iihri Dhaval Ranikant Daman, and Shri Shamir Rajnikait Damaru vide their letters dated 27.O3.2O24, 2a.O3.2O24 and 29.o3.2024 respectively subrnitted that they have only business r,:Iationships with Sterling Agro Industries Limited (SAIL) and its group, and has no other interest. It was further submitted that it has not made any out of books purchases or other transactior s with SAIL group. Further, that transferring their jurisdictio r to DCIT, Central Circle-2o, Delhi would cause hardship as it ir; 15OO kms away from Hyderabad.

¶100

::10::

¶101

wP_18985&19OO7_2025 PSK,.' & IINR J

¶102

3.2. In this regard, the DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi explained that during the course of Search & Seizure action carried out on 11.10.2023 in the case of SFPL and its Directors, Shri Dhaval Damani and Shri Sarnir Damani, details of unaccounted cash transactions pertaining to the assesses were found in the seized documents which remained unexplained and have a bearing on the determination of total income of the assesses. Notwithstanding the above, order under Section 127 of the Act of various companies and persons covered under the search action dated 11.10.2O23 has already been passed and central.ized to Central Circle-2O, New Delhi. Hence, for coordinated investigation and meaningful assessment, the said case is to be transferred to Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-20, New Delhi where all other cases of the group are centralized. Hence, the objection of the assessee is baseless and leads to the fact that it is afterthought of the assessee and nothing eise."

¶103

From the aforesaid given factual matrix of the case, we can conveniently reach to the conclusion that for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs arrd because of certain incriminating materials found by the authorities at Delhi in the course of search and seizure operations conducted under Section 132 against one of the industries at Delhi, some incriminating information was found so far as tJle petitioners were concerned; and therefore, for the purpose of a coordinated investigation and also for better administrative convenience strictly in accordance with the^guidelines and circulars issued

¶104

::11::

¶105

wP_18985&19OO7_2025 PSK,J & NITR,J

¶106

i i*' -a.3r!a5l!.{ltt .lardE,t>4

¶107

by the Central Board of Direct Taxes from time to time, it^was decided to transfer the assessment proceedings^pertaining to the petitioners to the Deputy Commissioner of Incolne Tax, Central Circle-2O, New Delhi.

¶108

L7. In the matter of The Commissioner of l:ncome Tax vs. Union of India & Ram Charan Agamale, a Di'rision^{Bench of} S Chhattisgarh High Court a-llowed the appeal by^holding under, vtz., (in paragraph Nos.28, 4O and 46)^:

¶109

"28. T*rc word 'coordinated' means harmoniou; in action. As documents have been seized at different lrlaces, it is necessaq/ that all the cases should be considered together at one place so that harmonious investigation be undertaken to arrive at^just assessment. Ihe words 'coordinated investigation' of the case is not vagu e.

¶110

No PreJudlce

¶111

Writ^jurisdiction under article 226 is dir;cretionary. While exercising writ^{jurisdiction,} it is also a relevant consideraLion, whether any^prejudice has been caused or not. [,et us consider this aspect also.

¶112

In the present case, the statutory provision is that transfer can be made for reasons recorded and after affording opportunity. This has been done in the present case. There is no statutory violation."

¶113

t w.p.A.No.33 of 20t3, dated 74.03.2o1)--

¶114

¶115

.rL2tl

¶116

EP_18985&190(J7_2025 PSK,., & mlRr.I

¶117

In one of the recent decisions rendered by the High Court at Kolkata in the case of Kanal llath vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkataz, it was held at paragraph No.22 thereof as under, viz.,

¶118

"22. The purpose of a transfer order under Section 127 is not to subject an assessee to tax liability. Its effect is only to subject an assessee to assessment under another^{jurisdictional} offrcer. Therefore, such an order involves balancing of the inconvenience to the petitioner and revenue interests (public interest), which should tilt towards the latter if there is some nexus derivable from facts and not mere pleas based on conjecture."

¶119

Following ttre aforesaid^judgment, this High Court in the case of M/s. Akshara Enterprises Priyate Limited IIs. The Principal Commissioner of Incooe Tax, Hyderabads, had dismissed the petition under somewhat similar backdrop.

¶120

2o. Therefore, taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find aly strong case made out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners calling for interference to the impugned order. Further, tlre contention that has been reflected in the instant two writ

¶121

'^{w.p.a.No.3868of 2022, dated06.or.2o23} t Writ Petition No.35029 of 2023, dated 08.01.2024

¶122

urP_ 1 8i985& 19OO7 _2025 PSK,J & lIttR,J

€.:t

:: l3::

r ".r,\r<-Gf,L.Frr}'+..e-.r petitions is that, in the writ petition filed by thr-' company, viz., Writ Petition No.18995 of 2025, there is already an assessment order for one of the assessment yea-rs having been passed by the assessing officer at the transferred place; and -so far as the other writ petition is concerned, viz., Writ Petition No.i9OO7 of 2025, there is no assessment order for any of the assessment years that has been passed. This, in the opinion of this Bench, would hardly make a difference so far as former rvrit petition ls concerned, for the reason that the petitioners ir the latter writ petition are none ot-her than the Directors of the Company, which is the petitioner-Company in the former ul'it petition, i.e., Writ Petition No.18985 of 2025. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners in Writ Petifion No,19OO7 of 20'.25 were totally oblivious of the transfer proceedings initiated by the respondents, the response submitted by the petitionerCompany, the impugned order of transfer being passed by the respondent, the petitioner-Company frling their response and objections before the Deputy Commissioner of Ircome Tax, at Delhi, i.e., the transferred place and frnally the assiessment order being passed against the petitioner-Company in which he was the Director, which again has been challengt:d before tJre

¶127

::14::

¶128

Ep_1t9a5&19OO7_2025 PfiK,J & NNR,J

¶129

jurisdictional appellate authority. Hence, the view of this Bench

¶130

taken in the course of the^{petitioner-Companywould also be} squarely applicable so far as the^{petitioners in Writ Petition} No.19007 of2025 are concerned.

¶131

2L. For all the aforesaid^{reasons, the instantwrit petitions} being devoid of merits deserve to be^{and are accordingly} dismissed. No costs.

¶132

Consequently, miscellaneous^{petitions pending, ifany,} shall stand closed.

'ou5;3uo$t33.t+[l[

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To 1 One^{CC to SRI} V.ANEESH'^{Advocate IOPU} ENIOR^STANDING 2 One cOUNSEL CC^{to MsFOR INCOME TB-SAPNA REDDY, AX DEPARTMENT,LEARNED} Advocate IOPUCI 3T wo CD^CoPies

SA PVL S/

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110712025

COMMON ORDER

o o(
ir O2 SEP 2E I
;-tl
,1
/2
*
f/
D1 ,-:>--,\ t /

¶142

WP.Nos.18985 AND 19007 0F 2025

¶143

DISMISSING THE BOTH

¶144

WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶145

6 @e

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2 transferring the petitioners' assessment proceedings from Hyderabad to Delhi is without jurisdiction, void, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.¶51
The court held
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, no strong case was made out by the petitioners' counsel calling for interference with the impugned order.ratio¶120
2.
Whether denial of a fair/personal opportunity of hearing as required under Section 127 of the Act vitiates the transfer order.¶56
The court held
Section 127 only mandates giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing; it does not anywhere enshrine granting of a personal hearing. Since an opportunity of hearing was admittedly given, to which the petitioners responded, the first objection fails.ratio¶83
3.
Whether the transfer order is procedurally flawed because the officer proposing the transfer (Chief Commissioner rank) and the officer accepting it (Principal Commissioner rank) are of different ranks, contrary to Section 127(2)(a) of the Act.¶56
The court held
Clause (a) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 127 does not require the two officers (proposer and acceptor) to be of the same rank; read pragmatically, it only indicates which officer can propose and which officer can accept the proposal for transfer.ratio¶92
4.
Whether sufficient reasons for the transfer were disclosed to the petitioners before the file was transferred from Hyderabad to Delhi.¶56
The court held
Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the impugned order clearly give the reasons for which the request for transfer was made; hence the contention that sufficient reasons were not disclosed fails.ratio¶98
5.
Whether the transfer order, having been acted upon with assessment for one year completed and the assessment order challenged in appeal, can still be interdicted by writ petition at this juncture.¶77
The court held
The Court found it difficult to accept the challenge to the transfer order by way of the instant writ petitions at this juncture, since the petitioners had permitted the assessing officer at the transferred place to proceed, the order had been acted upon and taken to its logical conclusion for one assessment year, and the assessment order had been challenged before CIT(Appeals) where the appeal is pending.ratio¶77

Shreeji Foods Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreeji Foods Private Limited v. Union of India

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

M/s Drs Logistics Private Limited Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2

Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii, Vs M/s. A.P. Mahesh Co-op Urban Bank Ltd.

Principal Commissioner Vs Sri. Ch. Govardhan Naidu

Mr. Dhawal Rajnikant Damani Vs Union of India

Gayoor Nasreen Vs Assessment Unit

Smt. Kavitha Lakkapatri Vs Assessment Unit