AJAY GOEL vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA & ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17591/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01082464201629 August 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no valid explanation for the petitioner's delay of over a year in challenging the impugned order. While the petitioner's counsel mentioned that the search and seizure operation itself was challenged before the Delhi High Court, no stay was brought to the attention of the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning the order impugned in this writ petition, which was the transfer of proceedings. The Court found no reason to interfere with the order. It was noted that if the proceedings before the Delhi High Court dealt with the petitioner's rights concerning the transfer order, he would be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding impounding or the location of his Chartered Accountant.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ajay Goel, challenged an order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, transferring his cases from the Assessing Officer, Kurukshetra to the Assessing Officer, Noida. This transfer followed a search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) on the Tirupati Group and Sunworld Group of Companies, with which the petitioner is admittedly connected as a partner in a firm of the Tirupati Group. The petitioner was issued a notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing, but instead of attending the hearing, he submitted a reply. The impugned order was passed over a year prior to the filing of the writ petition, and the petitioner provided no valid explanation for the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order transferring the petitioner's cases from Kurukshetra to Noida under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid. Assessee's contentions: - No impounding was done in his case. - No objectionable items were found at his premises. - As per the action plan, scrutiny cannot be done in the absence of impounding during survey operations. - His Chartered Accountant is based in Kurukshetra. Revenue's contentions: - The revenue did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment, but the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, noting the petitioner's reply and connection to the Tirupati Group. - The judgment notes that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127,Section 132(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17591-2016 Date of decision:- 29.08.2016 Ajay Goel ...Petitioner Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Present:- Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged an order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) transferring the cases relating to him from the Assessing Officer, Kurukshetra to the Assessing Officer, Noida.

2.

By a notice dated 05.03.2015, the petitioner was informed that search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 11.11.2014 on the Tirupati Group and the Sunworld Group of Companies and that the petitioner’s case was connected with the Tirupati Group. The petitioner agrees that he is a partner in one of the firms of the Tirupati Group. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing. The hearing was fixed on 11.03.2015. The petitioner, however, only addressed a reply dated 09.03.2015 and did not avail the opportunity of being heard on 11.03.2015. The petitioner contended, interalia, that no impounding had been done in the case; that no objectionable things were found at his works; that as per the action plan, no scrutiny can be done in the absence of impounding during survey operations and that his Chartered Accountant is based in Kurukshetra. Amodh Sharma 2016.08.31 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CWP-17591-2016 2

3.

As we mentioned earlier, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of being heard. The Commissioner of Income Tax, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 15.04.2015. The impugned order noted the reply filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is connected with a part of the Tirupati Group. The impugned order was passed over a year ago. There is no valid explanation for the petitioner having waited over a year to challenge the same.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) has been challenged before the Delhi High Court and that the same is placed on board on 09.11.2016. 5. Our attention, however, has not been invited to any stay which would enure to the benefit of the petitioner so far as the order impugned in this writ petition is concerned, namely, the transfer of the proceedings from Kurukshetra to Noida.

6.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the order. If ultimately the order passed in the proceedings filed by the Tirupati Group before the Delhi High Court deals with the petitioner’s rights in respect of the order impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner is always at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings.

7.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 29.08.2016 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Amodh Sharma 2016.08.31 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

More judgments on Section 127

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →