- (1.) In the intra -court appeals, the sustainability of the order passed by the Single Bench dismissing the civil writ petitions No. 13410/2010, 13272/10 and 13411/2010 has been called in question in the matter of transfer of the case of the assessee from Jaipur to Rourkela under the provisions of Sec. 127(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Act). Vide order dated 26.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income -tax, Jaipur -I, Jaipur in exercise of powers under Sec. 127(2) of the Act, the cases were transferred from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, Circle -2, Jaipur to DC/ACIT, Rourkela (Orissa). Search and seizure operation under Sec. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Ahluwalia group by the investigation wing of the department at Bhubneshwar, during which, it was alleged that they made a disclosure of Rs. 150 crores of concealed income. Since there was evasion of tax, to ensure coordinated investigation and proper assessment, it was proposed to centralize the cases of Ahluwalia group and request of centralization was made by the ADIT (Inv.) Unit -I(1), Bhubneshwar to the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Bhubneshwar by writing a letter dated 8.12.2009 pursuant thereto, a letter dated 15.12.2009 was sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur for centralization of the cases with ACIT/DCIT, Rourkela Circle. Thereafter, the CIT, Sambalpur requested the CIT -I, Jaipur to pass necessary orders under Sec. 127(2) of the Act. Notice was served upon Shri KJS Ahluwalia as to proposal of centralization of the cases.
(2.) Shri KJS Ahluwalia submitted objections pursuant to the notice dated 11.1.2010. The objections were sent for comments to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur. The final comments were sent by the Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Bhubaneshwar. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur passed common order transferring the seven cases. The Single Bench by the impugned order, has dismissed three aforesaid writ petitions and in other writ petitions, the impugned order has been quashed and liberty has been given to the respondent to proceed in the matter of transfer of cases in accordance with law as in those four cases no proper notice was issued. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of the above three writ petitions, the intra -court appeals have been preferred.
(3.) Shri Sagar Mai Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing with Shri Anant Kasliwal on behalf of the appellants submitted that transfer was directed by the CBDT and the agreement which was necessary under Sec. 127(2)(a) was foisted upon the concerned authorities. Thus, it could not be said that there was any agreement as required in the eye of law. Apart from that, the assessee had been assessed at Jaipur for the last three decades. There was no rhyme or reason to transfer the assessment case to Rourkela. It would not be convenient to Shri Kamaljeet Singh aged 70 years suffering from diabetes to attend the assessment proceedings at Rourkela. Besides the account of the appellant assessee are at Jaipur, their CA and legal consultants are also located at Jaipur. Thus, it could not be said to be appropriate to transfer the cases from Jaipur to Rourkela particularly when the order of transfer with respect to four groups out of seven have been set aside by the Single Bench.;