Shri Sanjay Agrawal vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1

PDF · subscribers
WP/5650/2021HC Madhya Pradesh23 June 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA2 pages
For Petitioner: Ashish GoyalFor Respondent: Veena Mandlik
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the writ petition had been pending since 2021 and that the petitioner had participated in proceedings in New Delhi. However, the current status of those proceedings was unknown. The Court observed that by the efflux of time, the issue raised in the writ petition was no longer liable to be examined. Therefore, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge any final order passed in the proceedings at New Delhi by way of an appeal before the appellate authority. With this liberty, the Writ Petition was dismissed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the transfer order itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of the pending litigation and the availability of alternative remedies.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Sanjay Agrawal, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 22.01.2021, passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, transferring his case from DCIT-5(1), Indore to Central Circle-18, New Delhi. The petitioner contended that he had no transaction with Shri Praveen Kakkar and Shri Rajendra Miglani, whose cases were also transferred, and that the respondent provided no valid reason for the transfer. The respondent, in their reply, stated that Shri Praveen Kakkar, Shri Rajendra Miglani, and others requested the transfer, and since the petitioner was involved in cash mobilization pertaining to the Kakkar Group, his case was also transferred. The respondent assured that the petitioner would be given an opportunity to be heard in New Delhi. The writ petition has been pending since 2021, and the petitioner participated in proceedings in New Delhi. However, the current status of the proceedings is unknown.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the transfer of the petitioner's case from DCIT-5(1), Indore to Central Circle-18, New Delhi, vide order dated 22.01.2021, under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is arbitrary and lacks valid reasons. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the transfer order was erroneous as he had no transactions with Shri Praveen Kakkar and Shri Rajendra Miglani, and the respondent failed to provide a specific reason linking his case to theirs for the purpose of "coordinate investigation and assessment." Revenue's Contention: The respondent contended that the transfer was initiated based on a request from Shri Praveen Kakkar, Shri Rajendra Miglani, and others. They further stated that the petitioner was involved in cash mobilization for the Kakkar Group, necessitating the transfer for coordinated investigation and assessment. The respondent also assured that the petitioner would be provided an opportunity to present his case before the competent authority in New Delhi.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 3 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI ON THE 23rd OF JUNE, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 5650 of 2021 SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Appearance: Shri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Harsh Parashar, learned counsel for the respondent. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the transfer of his case from DCIT-5(1), Indore to Central Circle-18, New Delhi vide order dated 22.01.2021 under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 02. According to the petitioner, he had no transaction with Shri Praveen Kakkar and Shri Rajendra Miglani, whose cases were transferred to Central Circle-18, New Delhi. The respondent has wrongly stated the reason to the effect that ''coordinate investigation and assessment'' without giving any reason as to how the case of the petitioner is related to the case of Shri Praveen Kakkar and Shri Rajendra Miglani. 03. After notice, the respondent has filed a reply by submitting that 1 WP-5650-2021 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15065 Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 24-06-2025 18:56:06 Signature Not Verified

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE Praveen Kakkar, Rajendra Miglani and others requested that the case should be transferred from DCIT-5(1), Indore to DCIT / ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi. Since Sanjay Agrawal was also involved in the cash mobilization pertaining to the Kakkar Groups, therefore, his was also transferred. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity by the competent authority at New Delhi. 04. There is no stay in the writ petition which is pending since 2021. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act at New Delhi. However, none of the parties have knowledge whether any final order has been passed or not ? The proceedings might have been concluded at New Delhi, therefore, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the final order by way of appeal before the appellate authority. By efflux of time, the issue raised in this writ petition is not liable to be examined. 05. With the aforesaid liberty, Writ Petition stands dismissed. Ravi

2 WP-5650-2021 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15065 Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 24-06-2025 18:56:06 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →