KAMAL VARANDMAL GALANI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the impugned order transferring the Petitioner's assessment jurisdiction was unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. The Court found that the order dated November 21, 2022, did not adequately reflect the reasons for the transfer, nor did it deal with the specific objections raised by the Petitioner. The Court noted that the assessing officer appeared to have acted mechanically on a request from Jaipur, rendering the agreement envisaged under Section 127(1)(a) superfluous and the opportunity to be heard illusory. The Court emphasized that the obligation to record reasons and provide an opportunity to be heard is crucial to prevent arbitrariness. The Court set aside the impugned order but granted liberty to the Principal Commissioner, Mumbai, to pass a fresh order if the Jaipur jurisdiction provides cogent material and reasons justifying the transfer within four weeks. The Petitioner would be given an opportunity to be heard, and any subsequent order should be passed within eight weeks. The Court did not decide on the merits of the proposed transfer itself, but on the procedural infirmities of the impugned order.
What were the facts?
The Petitioner, Kamal Varandmal Galani, who has filed income tax returns in Mumbai for over 22 years, challenged an order dated November 21, 2022, passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order transferred his assessment jurisdiction from Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Mumbai, to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Jaipur. The transfer was proposed to facilitate coordinated assessment with the "Veto Group" of Jaipur, where search proceedings under Section 132 were conducted. The Petitioner argued that no material connecting him to the Veto Group was found during a survey under Section 133A at M/s Landmark Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, where he was a director. The revenue contended that a search warrant was issued in the Petitioner's name during the Veto Group search, and he was a key person in the group.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order transferring the Petitioner's assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Jaipur under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed arbitrarily and without sufficient material or cogent reasons, thus violating the Petitioner's right to a reasonable opportunity of being heard? Assessee's Contentions: - There was no basis or material to justify the transfer of jurisdiction from Mumbai to Jaipur. - The show cause notice did not reflect any material collected against the Petitioner, preventing an effective reply. - A survey under Section 133A at M/s Landmark Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. yielded no incriminating material connecting the Petitioner or the company to the Veto Group. - The order of transfer was an arbitrary exercise of power. Revenue's Contentions: - The Petitioner's assessment jurisdiction was transferred for effective investigation and meaningful assessment after fulfilling procedural and legal requirements under Section 127. - A search and seizure under Section 132 was carried out in the Petitioner's case and other entities of "Veto Group" on December 22, 2021. - Incriminating documents and data were found and seized which may relate to the Petitioner and other group assessees. - Following CBDT Instruction No. 286/22/2008-IT (Inv.II) dated September 17, 2008, it is mandatory for investigation authorities to get searched cases transferred.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
: J U D G M E N T : Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J. . The Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the Order dated 21 November 2022 under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”), whereby the case of the Petitioner for purposes of assessment was transferred from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Mumbai to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 3, Jaipur. 2 Briefly stated that the material facts are as under : The Petitioner claims that he has been fling his income returns in Mumbai for the last 22 years, the last of which was fled electronically from Mumbai on 31 December 2021 for the assessment year 2021-22. 3 A notice dated 24 June 2022 came to be issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19 informing the Petitioner regarding the proposed transfer of assessment jurisdiction from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3) to the Deputy
2/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42
WPL 38534-22-J.doc Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Jaipur, with a view to enable a proper and co-ordinated assessment along with the assessment in the case of Veto Group, Jaipur on whom search proceedings were conducted under Section 132 of the Act. The show cause notice stated that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Rajasthan vide a communication dated 16 February 2022 had proposed for centralization of the case of the Petitioner with Vito Group at Jaipur and, therefore, the Petitioner was asked to fle his submissions in that regard. 4 Section 127 of the Act authorizes inter alia the Principal Chief Commissioner to transfer any case from one or more assessing offcers subordinate to him to any other assessing offcers also subordinate to him, after recording reasons and after giving to the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so. Section 127(2) further envisages that where the Assessing Offcers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Offcers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same offcer, then there ought to be an agreement between the Principal Commissioner or other authorities mentioned in the said sub-section exercising jurisdiction over such assessing offcers, and an Order can then be 3/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42
WPL 38534-22-J.doc passed after recording reasons and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
Objections to the transfer of jurisdiction were fled by the Petitioner, wherein, it was stated that there was no basis for transfer of the assessment jurisdiction of the Petitioner from DCIT- 19(3), Mumbai to the DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur as there was no material found during the search operation, which would connect the Petitioner with the Vito Group of Jaipur. It was also stated that no such search was conducted in terms of Section 132 of the Act on the premises of the Petitioner, although, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s Landmark Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. in Mumbai in which the Petitioner was a Director. It was also stated that during the course of survey proceeding, statement of the Petitioner had been duly recorded and further that there was no incriminating material found during the survey proceeding so conducted, which would connect either the Petitioner or even M/s Landmark Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. with the Vito Group of Jaipur in whose case the search action had been conducted. It was further urged that the Petitioner had also highlighted
4/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42
WPL 38534-22-J.doc the fact that in the show cause notice, no mention had been made as regards there being any material collected by the revenue against the Petitioner, on the basis of which, the transfer of the jurisdiction could be contemplated. 6 Objections raised by the Petitioner came to be decided and rejected by virtue of the Order dated 21 November 2022. The crux of the Order, which is contained in para-3 is reproduced herein below :
“3. Thereafter, your objection was forwarded to the AO where centralization is proposed i.e. DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur. The concerned AO has submitted that a search action was carried out in the cases of Veto Group, Jaipur on 22.12.2021. A warrant of authorization was issued in the name of Shri Kamal Galani. It is also worthwhile to mention here that Shri Kamal Galani is one of the Director of M/s Landmark Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (which is also proposed to be centralized with this offce) and key person of the Veto Group. In the above mentioned case along with other entities of the group, survey action was also carried on 22.12.2021 in the case of M/s Landmark Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. During the course of search/survey at various entities of the Group, incriminating documents and data were found and seized/impounded which may relate to the assessee as well other assessees of this group. Further, it is submitted that out of 79 assessees related to the Veto group, 69 assessees have already been centralized with this offce.
In view of the above facts, case of the assessee is required to be centralized with this offce under the 5/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42
WPL 38534-22-J.doc change of the Principal Commissioner of Income tax (Central), Jaipur for coordinated, comprehensive and logical enquiry and investigation in respect of “VETO GROUP” entities.” 7 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Madhur Agrawal, vehemently urged that there was absolutely no basis or material with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Mumbai to Order the transfer of the assessment jurisdiction of the Petitioner from DCIT-19(3), Mumbai to DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur. It was stated that had there been any material, the same ought to have been reflected in the show cause notice and provided to the Petitioner, which would have then enabled the Petitioner to fle an effective reply. It was, thus, urged that the action of the Respondent-revenue was, therefore, arbitrary. In addition to this, it was stated that according to the records of survey proceeding prepared by the Respondent-revenue, during the survey conducted on M/s Landmark Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, nothing incriminating was found and no inventory prepared. For the purpose of reference what was recorded in the survey proceeding, is reproduced herein below :
6/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42
WPL 38534-22-J.doc “4. In the course of the Survey. A) The following were found and inventoried – Nil.” 8 Reply affdavit has been fled by the Respondent-revenue, wherein it is stated that the assessment jurisdiction of the Petitioner was transferred to Rajasthan for an effective investigation and meaningful assessment after fulflling the applicable procedural and legal requirements as stated under Section 127 of the Act. Reply fled in para 5.3 of the affdavit reads as under : “……..that a search and seizure u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Investigation Wing of Jaipur on 22.12.2021 in the Petitioner’s case and other entities of “Veto Group”. During the course of search at various entitles of the Group, incriminating documents and data were found and seized which may have related to the petitioner and other assessees of this group. Once a search u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 takes place, then as per the binding instruction of CBDT being instruction number 286/22/2008-IT (Inv.II) dated 17 September 2008, it is mandatory for the investigation authorities who have carried out the search to get all the searched cases and connected to the search to centralize with an assessing offcer of a central charge at the earliest. The instruction of the CBDT are binding on the offcers of the Income Tax department.” 9 However, from the aforementioned reply, it can be seen that there is no specifc averment made that there was anything incriminating found either during the survey proceeding conducted
7/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42
WPL 38534-22-J.doc on M/s Landmark Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, of which the Petitioner was a Director, or during the search proceedings conducted on the Vito Group, which would connect either M/s Landmark Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. or the Petitioner to the Vito Group of Jaipur. The survey report and records prepared in regard to the survey proceedings on M/s Landmark Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. does reflect that there was no inventory prepared during the survey proceeding, suggesting that there was nothing incriminating found. 10
As regards the search and seizure action conducted on Vito Group, neither the show cause notice issued on 24 June 2022, nor the reply submitted by the Respondent-revenue reflects or rebuts the contention of the Petitioner that there was no incriminating material found against the Petitioner during the said search proceedings. If there had at all been any material found, the same would have been relied upon by the Respondent-revenue. On the other hand, from the reply fled by the Respondent- revenue the authorities only seem to be speculating that the incriminating documents and data found and seized/impounded ‘may relate to the assessee as well as other assesses of this group.’
8/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42
WPL 38534-22-J.doc The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, therefore, did not appear to be in possession of any material at all, based upon which he could draw his satisfaction that the assessment jurisdiction deserved to be transferred from DCIT-19(3), Mumbai to the DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur and rather appears to have speculated that only because there was a search/survey conducted and a request made by the concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Rajasthan, the jurisdiction had to be transferred following the instructions of CBDT dated 17 September 2008. Reference to the instructions dated 17 September 2008 relied upon by the Respondent-revenue is pertinent and in particular clause (d), which is reproduced herein under : “(d) The ADIT (Inv.) should send proposal for centralization through the Addl. DIT (Inv.) to the DIT(Inv.) who in turn should send the proposal to the CIT (C) or the CIT as mentioned in (C) above as the case may be within 30 days of initiation of search. The proposal should contain names of the cases their PANs, the designation of the present assessing offcers and the present CIT charge. The list should also contain the connected cases proposed to be centralized along with reasons thereof including their relationship with the main persons of the group. The assessees not having PAN should also be included along with their addressees and territorial jurisdiction. Against each of the cases, it should be mentioned whether it is covered u/s 132(1) of 132A or 133A(1) or it is a connected case copies of the proposal should also be endorsed to the CCIT concerned from whose jurisdiction the cases are to be transferred and the DGIT(Inv.)/CCIT(C) to whose jurisdiction the cases are being transferred.”
9/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42
WPL 38534-22-J.doc The Instructions make it clear that while sending a proposal for centralization, reasons had to be reflected including the relationship of the petitioner with the main persons of the group. No such sustainable reasons are forthcoming from the records except speculation connecting the Petitioner and the subject material and a request from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur for centralization of the case. In fact the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax-19(3), Mumbai ought to have refused to accede to the request for centralization inasmuch as it had not received any cogent material or reasons, which would have formed a basis for the transfer of the case to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Jaipur.
Needless to say that transfer of assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Jaipur would certainly cause inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner both in terms of money, time and resources, and therefore, the order impugned in the absence of the requisite material/reasons as the basis would be nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power and therefore liable to be set aside.
10/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42
WPL 38534-22-J.doc From a reading of the Order impugned passed under Section 127(2) of the Act, it can be seen that the same does not at all reflect as to why it was necessary to transfer the jurisdiction from DCIT- 19(3), Mumbai to DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur. None of the issues raised by the Petitioner have been dealt with either in the Order dated 21 November 2022 disposing of the objections raised by the Petitioner much less have the same been reflected in the Order impugned under Section 127(2) of the Act. The assessing offcer appears to have acted very mechanically treating the request from DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur, as if it was binding upon him. In our opinion, the said request was not at all binding inasmuch as if it was so, then the agreement envisaged under Section 127(1)(a) would be rendered superfluous. The agreement envisaged in terms of aforesaid section is not in the context of showing deference to a request made by a colleague or higher offcer, but an agreement based upon an independent assessment of the request in the light of the reasons recorded seeking transfer of the jurisdiction. Infact, section 127(1) (b) contemplates a situation where in the event of a disagreement, the matter is referred to an offcer as the Board may, by notifcation in the Offcial Gazette, authorise in that behalf. Not only this, if a 11/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42
WPL 38534-22-J.doc request for transfer of jurisdiction was to be treated as binding, then it would have rendered otiose Section 127 to the extent the same envisages an opportunity of being heard to be provided to the Petitioner. The obligation on the part of the assessing offcer to record reasons before ordering the transfer of the case and the right of the assessee to be heard in the matter are not hollow slogans but prescribed to achieve a particular purpose and the purpose is to remove any element of arbitrariness while exercising powers under Section 127 of the Act. If the request for transfer of jurisdiction was so sacrosanct as could not be refused, then the opportunity of being heard would be nothing but illusory rendering the request a foregone conclusion regarding its acceptance. We, therefore, are not convinced at all that the moment a request was made by the concerned offcer from Jaipur, the same had necessarily to be allowed as per the Instructions dated 17 September 2008. 13
For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we hold that the Order impugned is unsustainable in law and is, accordingly, set aside. However, the Principal Commissioner, Mumbai shall have liberty to pass orders afresh if the concerned Principal Commissioner or any other offcer authorised in that behalf from 12/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42
WPL 38534-22-J.doc the Jaipur Jurisdiction communicates to him within four weeks and not beyond, cogent material and reasons justifying a transfer of jurisdiction to Jaipur. The petitioner would be given an opportunity of being heard. Requisite order, if any, be passed, not later than eight weeks from today. Consequently impugned notice dated 21 November 2022 is quashed. 14 The Writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.)
13/13 Uploaded on - 06/05/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:45:42 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
More judgments on Section 127
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kishor Kumar Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs ACIT-Central Circle-30- Delhi., DelhiITA 2305/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Kishor Kumar Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs ACIT-Central Circle-30, DelhiITA 2304/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Chenna Narayana Chakka, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward 6(1), HyderabadITA 1944/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Chenna Narayana Chakka, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward-6(1), HyderabadITA 1943/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
