Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1.
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M)
Reserved on 1st August, 2025
Date of Decision: 4th September, 2025
PAWAN KUMAR GOEL AND ANOTHER
.…...Petitioner(s)
V/s.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA AND OTHERS
…....Respondent(s)
2.
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
PAWAN KUMAR GOEL
.…...Petitioner(s)
V/s.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA AND OTHERS
…....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
ARGUED BY :-
Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate and
Ms. Selena Chalana, Advocate
for the petitioners-Assessee.
Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel and
Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Standing Counsel,
for the respondent-Income Tax Department.
******
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1.
These two petitions are connected and have been heard
together. They are, thus, being decided by this composite judgment. For the
sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP-9194-2021
and is taken as the lead case.
2.
Petitioner-Pawan Kumar Goel is a resident of Panchkula and is
running his business in the name and style of M/s. Chemical Resources,
S.C.O. No.76, Swastik Vihar, NMDC, Sector-5, Panchkula. Survey action
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 2 of 19
was initiated against petitioner by the Income Tax Department under
Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to “the
Act of 1961”). It was subsequently converted into search and seizure
operations under Section 132 of the Act of 1961 at the residence/office and
business premises of the petitioner from 06.09.2016 to 08.09.2016. Writ
Petition i.e. CWP-8261-2017 titled as Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Union of
India and others came to be filed by petitioner challenging such conversion
of survey into search and seizure.
3.
The Court noticed that petitioner had cooperated with the
Income Tax Department during survey action and had voluntarily disclosed
existence of cash to the tune of `2,09,89,090/- in his safe and keys were
handed over to the officials of the Income Tax Department with an
explanation that such amount of cash was received by way of advance in a
business transaction. The Court further noticed that the summons issued to
petitioner was vague and therefore, the decision to convert survey into
search and seizure was violative of the procedure contemplated in law,
inasmuch as no satisfaction was recorded either with regard to non-
cooperation of petitioner or that any bonafide suspicion had arisen that
income had been concealed by petitioner. The Court consequently allowed
the Writ Petition in the following terms on 22.05.2019:
“For the reasons above, we have no hesitation to
conclude that the present petition deserves to succeed. The
impugned action of the respondents is quashed. The
consequential benefits would flow to the petitioner forthwith.
Ordered accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied by us)
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 3 of 19
4.
The Division Bench’s judgment dated 22.05.2019, has attained
finality with dismissal of department’s appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
5.
The present Writ Petition has been instituted challenging the
notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act of 1961 as
well as notice dated 31.03.2021, issued under Section 148 of the Act of
1961 issued by the DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2, Chandigarh, on the ground that it
is in derogation of the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP-8261-2017.
A further prayer is made to restrain the respondents from initiating any
further proceedings under the garb of aforesaid notices dated 30.03.2021
and 31.03.2021.
6.
In the connected Writ Petition i.e. CWP-5238-2022, the
petitioner has assailed notice dated 07.03.2022 issued to him for the
assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 under Section 142 of the Act of
1961 also on the ground of it being in teeth of the judgment rendered by this
Court in petitioner’s earlier Writ Petition i.e. CWP-8261-2017. A prayer is
also made to restrain the respondents from proceeding any further pursuant
to the such proceedings.
7.
Petitioner submits that this Court, in CWP-8261-2017, has
explicitly mentioned that consequential benefits would flow to petitioner as
the Income Tax authorities have violated the procedure completely in
altering the survey to search and seizure. It is, therefore, submitted that all
proceedings initiated against the petitioner inclusive of, but not limited to
assessment years, notices, demands, penalty orders/proceedings, pertaining
to the search and seizure, have become null and void. According to
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 4 of 19
petitioner, the direction issued by this Court, to quash all consequential
proceedings, has not been carried out in letter and spirit.
8.
It is pointed out that a notice was issued to petitioner on
15.12.2016, proposing to centralize his case from DCIT, Circle, Panchkula
to DCIT/ACIT Central Circle-II, Chandigarh in view of the CBDT
instructions. This notice was responded by petitioner vide his reply dated
26.12.2016 objecting to the proposal for transferring petitioner’s
jurisdiction from Panchkula to Chandigarh. Ultimately, an order dated
04.01.2017 came to be passed by the Principal Commissioner Income Tax,
Panchkula transferring the jurisdiction of petitioner from DCIT Circle,
Panchkula to DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-II, Chandigarh. Para 4 and 5 of order dated
04.01.2017 are relevant and are reproduced hereunder:-
“4.
I have given a careful consideration to all the submission
to the assessee and examined all facts of the case. The case has
also been discussed in details with the counsel for the assessee.
After discussion Authorized Representative of the assessee has
given no objection for centralization of the case with the Central
Circle-II, Chandigarh.”
5.
Keeping in view the facts of the case, I, the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, in the interest of
administrative convenience as well as for the sake of
co-ordinated investigation of the concerned group case, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (2)
of Section 127 of the Income Tax, 1961, hereby transfer the
jurisdiction over below mentioned case with DCIT/ACIT,
Central Circle-II, Chandigarh with immediate effect:-
Sr.
No.
Name & Address
of the person/
concern
PAN
Assessing
Officer
Circle which
to be
transferred
1.
Sh. Pawan Kumar
Goel, Panchkula
ACTPG3391D
DCIT Circle,
Panchkula
Central
Circle-II,
Chandigarh
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 5 of 19
9.
The aforesaid order dated 04.01.2017 came to be passed by the
authority exercising its jurisdiction under Section 127(2)(a) of the Act of
1961. It is worth noticing that order dated 04.01.2017, transferring the
jurisdiction in respect of petitioner /assessee from DCIT Circle, Panchkula
to Central Circle-II, Chandigarh, has not been challenged.
10.
It is thereafter that notices have been issued to petitioner under
Section 142 of the Act of 1961 for the assessment years 2016-2017,
2017-2018 and 2018-2019. Notices have also been issued to the petitioner
under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. These notices are the subject matter
of challenge in these petitions.
11.
Petitioner submits that during the pendency of the earlier Writ
Petition i.e. CWP-8261-2017, the Assessing authority illegally initiated
assessment proceedings against petitioner and passed an assessment order
under Section 143(3) read with Section 153B of the Act of 1961 on
24.12.2018. A notice of demand was also issued to petitioner on
30.08.2018, but the same was subsequently withdrawn on 09.09.2019.
Petitioner claims that he intended to prefer a statutory appeal against the
assessment order dated 24.12.2018, but on account of the judgment
delivered by this Court on 22.05.2019, the Assessing Officer issued a
refund voucher to petitioner. It was for this reason that occasion did not
arise for the petitioner to pursue any appeal. Notwithstanding the above, the
Income Tax authorities have proceeded illegally and arbitrarily against
petitioner, again, vide impugned action.
12.
The primary ground of challenge to the impugned action is the
transfer of jurisdiction of assessee from the assessing authority at Panchkula
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 6 of 19
to the assessing authority at Central Circle-II, Chandigarh. According to
petitioner the transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act of 1961
was a direct consequence of the search and seizure, undertaken by the
Income Tax Department, against the petitioner and once the petitioner’s
earlier Writ Petition was allowed, and all consequential actions were
quashed by the Division Bench of this Court, it was not open for the Income
Tax Department to have either transferred the jurisdiction of the assessee
nor the Central Circle-II, Chandigarh, could have issued notices under
Sections 142 and 148 of the Act of 1961.
13.
Petitioner’s claim is opposed by learned counsel for the Income
Tax Department contending that the action of the competent authority in
transferring the jurisdiction of assessing authority under Section 127 of the
Act of 1961 is an independent exercise undertaken for administrative
convenience and cannot be construed as an action consequential to the
search and seizure. It is urged that petitioner himself had acquiesced to the
transfer of jurisdiction and since the specific order whereby such transfer
was made i.e. order dated 04.01.2017, is not under challenge, as such, no
relief can be granted to petitioner.
14.
In reply, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the
consent of petitioner recorded in the order dated 04.01.2017, for transfer of
jurisdiction, was obtained on account of duress and cannot be said to be a
voluntarily act on part of petitioner. It is further pointed out that in the
written objection filed by petitioner to the notices, the issue of transfer of
jurisdiction was specifically challenged.
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 7 of 19
15.
We have heard Ms. Munisha Gandhi, learned Senior counsel
for petitioner assisted by Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate and Mr. Vaibhav
Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Department, and
perused the materials on record.
16.
Ms. Munisha Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. and others Vs. Ananta Saha and
others1 to contend that it is well settled that if initial action is not in
consonance with law, the subsequent proceedings would also not be
sustainable. Reliance is also placed upon the legal maxim “sublato
fandamento cadit opus” which means that ‘when a foundation is removed,
superstructure falls.’
17.
Ms. Gandhi has also placed reliance on the Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in The Commissioner of Income
Tax-I, Aaykar Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia, Prop.
Aditya Jewellers, 2nd Floor, Golden Palace, Dharampeth, Nagpur2. In this
case, the assessee was assessed at Rajnandgaon (Madhya Pradesh).
A search was conducted on the premises of the assessee. For the purposes
of facilitating a detailed and co-ordinated investigation, an order came to be
passed on 06.07.1999 under Section 127 of the Act of 1961, transferring the
then petitioner/assessee’s case from Rajnandgaon (M.P.) to Nagpur,
Maharashtra. The order under Section 127 of the Act of 1961 transferring
the assessee’s case to Nagpur was quashed by the Madhya Pradesh High
Court on 17.09.1999. Notices under Section 158 BC of the Act of 1961
1 (2011) 5 SCC 142
2 Income Tax Appeal 27 of 2006 decided on 11.07.2017
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 8 of 19
were also issued on 22.09.1999 i.e. after the transfer of case of the
respondent-assessee on 06.07.1999. The Court held that once the order
under Section 127 of the Act was quashed by the High Court, it ceased to
exist. The transferred authority at Nagpur accordingly ceased to have any
jurisdiction to assess the assessee as there was no order of transfer of
assessee’s case to Nagpur. It was in this context that the Court observed that
even acquiescence or participation in such unauthorized proceedings, will
not confer jurisdiction upon the transferred Assessing authority. The
Bombay High Court in such circumstances observed as under:
“20. Transfer of proceedings u/s.127 of the Act cannot be
retrospective so as to confer jurisdiction on a person who does
not have it. Section 127 of the Act does not empower the
Authorities under the Act to confer jurisdiction on a person who
does not have jurisdiction with retrospective effect. In fact, the
explanation under Section 127 of the Act clearly provides that all
the proceedings under the Act which are pending on the date of
such order of transfer and all the proceedings which may be
commenced after date of such order of transfer would stand
transferred to the Assessing Officer to whom the case is
transferred by Section 127(1) of the Act. This provision makes it
clear that though transfer would come into effect from the date
the order of Commissioner passed under Section 127(1) of the
Act, the proceedings already commenced would not abate and
continue with new Assessing Officer, who assumes charge
consequent to transfer subject of course to the pending
notices 21 itl127.06.odt being within jurisdiction of the Officer
issuing the notices. It is not a provision which validates without
jurisdiction notice issued by an Income Tax Officer. If the
submission of the Revenue on the above account is to be
accepted, then an order which is without jurisdiction could be
bestowed with jurisdiction by passing an order of transfer with
retrospective effect. Section 127 of the Act does not validate
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 9 of 19
notices/orders issued without jurisdiction, even if they are
transferred to a new Officer by an Order under Section 127 of
the Act.”
18.
Learned Senior Counsel lastly placed reliance upon a Division
Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Principal Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs. Divine Light Finance Ltd.3. In this case, the Court has
held as under:-
9.
Where an authority or court lacks inherent jurisdiction in
passing a decree or order, the decree or order passed by such
authority or court would be without jurisdiction, non est and
void ab initio. Lack of territorial jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Income Tax - IV who passed the order dated
19.01.2016 under Section 263 of the Act, 1961 to exercise
supervisory jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and strikes
at his very authority to pass the said order. Such defect is basic
and fundamental and, therefore, the order passed by the
aforesaid C.I.T having no territorial jurisdiction over the
respondent/assessee, is nullity. Order or decree passed by a
court having no jurisdiction, has been held to be nullity by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan AIR
1954 SC 340, Hira Patari Vs. Kali Nath AIR 1962 SC 199,
Balwant N Vishwamitra and Others Vs. Yadav Sada Shiv Mull
(2004) 8 SCC 706.”
19.
Per contra, Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel, appearing
for the Income Tax Department contends that the information gathered from
search and seizure (though declared illegal) cannot be excluded from
evidence for the purpose of determining income of the assessee and the
consequential liability to pay tax. It is urged that the illegality of survey or
search does not vitiate the evidence collected in such search and seizure.
3 2024 Latest Caselaw 2256 Cal/2
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 10 of 19
Analogy is sought to be drawn to submit that quashing of search and seizure
will not efface the evidence collected in such proceedings nor valid action
taken against the assessee in the form of transfer of his assessing authority
can be invalidated. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon
the following judgments:-
1.
Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection (Investigation) of Income-
Tax, New Delhi and Others 4
2.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamal and Company 5
3.
Income Tax Officer Vs. U.K. Mahapatra & Co. and others 6
20.
On the aspect of re-opening of the assessment, learned counsel
for the respondents places reliance on the following judgements:-
1.
New Delhi Television Vs. DCIT 7 ;
2.
Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer 8 ;
3.
Hemjay Constructions Vs. Income Tax Officer 9;
4.
BDR Builders and Developers Vs. ACIT, 10 and
5.
PCIT Central Vs. Maharaji Education Trust 11
21.
Learned counsel for the respondents lastly places reliance upon
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Main Land Finance Pvt.
Ltd. VS. PCIT Faridabad 12, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has held as under:-
6. At this stage, reference can be made to the judgment
passed in Genus Electrotech Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2017) 86
taxmann.com 39 (Gujarat), wherein the High Court of Gujarat
was examining the power under Section 127 of the Income Tax
Act, which are concerned with larger public interest on one end
4 1974 (93) ITR 505 (Large Bench) Supreme Court
5 2009 (308) ITR 129 Rajasthan High Court
6 Civil Appeal No. 5067 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009
7 2020 (424) ITR 607, Supreme Court
8 1999 (236) ITR 34, Supreme Court.
9 2019 (419) ITR 39, Gujarat
10 2024 NCDHC 3459, Delhi High Court
11 2024 (468) ITR 634, Delhi High Court.
12 2023 NCPHHC 122886
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 11 of 19
and personal inconvenience on the other. However, as long as
such powers are exercised bona fide, for public purpose and in
the interest of Revenue, the role of the Court to dissect such
reasons and to come to a different conclusion would be
extremely limited. The orders passed for transfer under Section
127 of the Act are administrative orders and the Court has to
examine that such orders can only be interfered if, the transfer
has been made in wholly arbitrary ground. Reference has been
made to a decision given in Shree Ram Vessel Scrap (P) Ltd. vs.
CIT, (2013) 32 taxmann.com 120/215 Taxman 203 (Guj).”
22.
We have perused the judgment dated 22.05.2019 of the
Division of this Court in the petitioner’s earlier Writ Petition i.e.
CWP-8261-2017. The primary challenge in the Writ Petition was to the
action of the Income Tax Department in converting the survey into search
and seizure. Such conversion was found to be invalid and consequently the
search and seizure proceedings were quashed. In the operative portion, the
Division Bench held the search and seizure conducted by the Department at
the petitioner’s premises between 06.09.2016 to 08.09.2016 to be bad in
law and resultantly quashed it. The consequential benefits were directed to
flow to petitioner, forthwith.
23.
On the basis of submissions raised at the bar on behalf of the
rival parties, we find that following questions arise for our consideration in
these two Writ Petitions :-
(I)
Whether the order dated 04.01.2017, transferring
petitioner’s case to Central Circle-2, Chandigarh
from Panchkula, is a consequence of the search
and seizure carried out against the petitioner or is
it an order passed in exercise of administrative
exigency, independently ?
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 12 of 19
(II)
Whether impugned notices issued under Sections
142 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are liable
to be quashed on the ground of it be in derogation
of order dated 22.05.2019 of Division Bench of this
Court in CWP-8261-2017 ?
(III) As to whether flow of consequential benefits,
consequent upon quashing of search and seizure
operation, would invalidate the transfer of
jurisdiction effected vide order dated 04.01.2017 ?
24.
Section 127 of the Act of 1961, as it stood then, reads as
under:-
Power to transfer cases.
127. (1)
The Principal Director General or Director
General
or
Principal
Chief
Commissioner
or
Chief
Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner
may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being
heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after
recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one
or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or
without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer
or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent
jurisdiction) also subordinate to him.
(2)
Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from
whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or
Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not
subordinate to the same Principal Director General or Director
General
or
Principal
Chief
Commissioner
or
Chief
Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner—
(a) where the Principal Directors General or
Directors
General
or
Principal
Chief
Commissioners
or
Chief
Commissioners
or
Principal Commissioners or Commissioners to
SURESH KUMAR
2025.09.08 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and
CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Page 13 of 19
whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are
in agreement, then the Principal Director General
or
Director
General
or
Principal
Chief
Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal
Commissioner or Commissioner from whose
jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after
giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to
do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so,
pass the order;
(b) where the Principal Directors General or
Directors
General
or
Principal
Chief
Commissioners
or
Chief
Commissioners
or
Principal
Commissioners
or
Commissioners
aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorize in this behalf…….”
25.This Court has held the transfer of juri iction under Section 127 of the Act of 1961 to be an administrative action taken by the competent authority. Such order of transfer can always be passed in the interest of administrative convenience of the Department or in public interest. Ordinarily such exercise of juri iction can be interfered with only where passing of such order is malafide or is not for public purpose or in the interest of revenue.
26.We may observe that order dated 04.01.2017 came to be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner. This order records that the representative of the assessee had conveyed no objection to SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.08 13:03 integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
centralization of the case with the Central Circle-II, Chandigarh. Neither the order dated 04.01.2017 is challenged nor there is any specific challenge to the observation and finding contained therein with regard to the order being based on petitioner’s consent.
27.The consent on the part of the representative of the assessee for centralization of his case with Central Circle-II, Chandigarh, is sought to be explained by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that such ‘no objection’ was not voluntary and had otherwise been objected to by the assessee in reply to the show cause notice. We are, however, not impressed by such stand of petitioner, in objecting to his own no objection for centralization of its case. In the event such consent was imposed upon the representative of petitioner, it was always upon for petitioner to have challenged the order dated 04.01.2017 in appropriate proceedings. Once it has not been done so, it would not be open for the petitioner to indirectly assail the order on the ground of it being a consequence of search and seizure.
28.It would be worth noticing that even at stage of filing of the Writ Petition, there is no prayer made for quashing of the administrative decision of the competent authority taken on 04.01.2017, for centralization of petitioner’s case with Central Circle-II, Chandigarh. This aspect is relevant and has to be kept in mind.
29.So far as the petitioner’s contention about invalidity of order dated 04.01.2017, in light of the judgement of this Court in CWP-8261-2017 is concerned, we find that the consequence of search and seizure under the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be direct and which is SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.08 13:03 integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
specifically provided for in the statutory scheme itself. Ordinarily, search and seizure operation would result in passing of an order under Section 153A of the Act of 1961. For such purposes, shelter can be taken to Section 153B of the Act of 1961. In the present case, no action, referrable to Sections 153A or 153B, has been undertaken. The direction by this Court while interfering with the search and seizure to extend benefits consequent upon invalidation of search and seizure would only include such action which is a direct consequence of it and not something which is claimed to be connected to it or flowing from it on the basis of a process of reasoning.
30.In our assessment, Section 127 of the Act of 1961 is an independent provision conferring administrative power on the competent authority to transfer juri iction for administrative exigency etc. and exercise of such juri iction cannot be said to be a direct consequence of search and seizure.
31.The view that we propose to take finds support from the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer Inspection (Investigation) of Income-Tax, New Delhi and Others (Supra). The Supreme Court held that even assuming the search and seizure were in contravention of Section 132 of the Act, still, the material seized during such search and seizure was liable to be used subject to law before the Income Tax authorities, against the person from whose custody it was seized. It can thus be reasonably deduced that quashing of search and seizure would not render inadmissible an information gathered during such SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.08 13:03 integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
proceedings. On similar analogy, we are inclined to hold that the administrative action taken by the Department to transfer assessee’s hereunder:- 11. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in two cases referred above we find that the material collected during the course of illegal search can be made use of thus if the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court is applied then it becomes clear that even in the case of illegal survey, material collected can be used for additions. While delivering the judgment the Hon'ble apex Court was cautious about the fact that material collected is coming out from illegal search and yet material collected was allowed to be used by the AO. The same analogy applies here for the reason that so far as the procedure-undertaken by the AO is concerned, it remains same in regard to use of material either collected in search or in survey. The inventory of stock was prepared by the Inspector during the course of illegal survey and material was then used by the AO for making additions.
Hence in those circumstances, we are of the opinion that in view of the two judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court, Revenue was entitled to use material collected during the course of illegal survey.”
33.Though, it may be said that administrative exigency necessitating transfer of juri iction under Section 127 of the Act of 1961 SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.08 13:03 integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
included the facilitation of search and seizure yet, in our considered view, centralization of juri iction with Central Circle Charge, Chandigarh remains an independent administrative action which cannot be said to be a direct consequence of search and seizure or to render it illegal once the search and seizure is quashed.
34.The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. and others Vs. Ananta Saha and others (Supra) laying down the proposition that once foundation is the knocked off, the superstructure must fall, is too well settled to be questioned, but unfortunately, it has no application in the facts of the present case for the reasons enumerated hereinabove.
35.The judgment of the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench in The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Aaykar Bhavan, Nagpur Vs. 2025.09.08 13:03 integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
Finance Ltd. (Supra) has also no applicability in the facts of the present case. Once the order or proceedings, challenged before this High Court is quashed, what follows from it as its consequence is only the direct and natural consequence and not an independent administrative action taken in separate proceedings.
37.In such circumstances, we cannot accept that the quashing of search and seizure by this Court on petitioner premises, by the Income Tax Department between 06.09.2016 to 08.09.2016, would result in rendering the administrative order dated 04.01.2017, transferring the juri iction of assessee from DCIT, Circle, Panchkula to DCIT/ACIT Central Circle-II, Chandigarh to be illegal. In such circumstances, the impugned notices cannot be quashed.
38.In view of the deliberations held as above, the questions posed for our consideration are answered as under:- (I) The order dated 04.01.2017, transferring petitioner’s case to Central Circle-2, Chandigarh from Panchkula, is an order passed in exercise of administrative exigency, independently and is not a consequence of the search and seizure carried out against the petitioner. (II) The impugned notices issued under Sections 142 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not liable to be quashed on the ground of it be in derogation of order dated 22.05.2019 of Division Bench of this Court in CWP-8261-2017. (III) The transfer of juri iction effected vide order dated 04.01.2017 would not be invalidated, consequent upon quashing of search and seizure operation. SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.08 13:03 integrity of this document
CWP-9194-2021 (O&M) and CWP-5238-2022 (O&M)
39.Before concluding, we may however observe that as these Writ Petitions have been entertained and are pending since 2021 and 2022 respectively, during which various orders of assessment etc. have been passed against petitioner/assessee, pursuant to the impugned notices, it would be appropriate to extend an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge such orders of assessment etc. by filing appropriate appeal, which shall be entertained on merits without raising any objection with regard to delay.
40.Subject to the observations made hereinabove, both these Writ Petitions accordingly fail and are dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.
41.All pending applications in this case are disposed of, accordingly.
[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] JUDGE
[KULDEEP TIWARI] JUDGE September 4, 2025 Ess Kay
Whether speaking / reasoned
:
Yes / No Whether Reportable
:
Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.08 13:03 integrity of this document
