1 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.06.2017 CORAM HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.847 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.871 & 872 of 2017 M/s. Aditya Birla Money Limited Ali Centre, 53, Greams Road, Chennai 600006. Represented by its Authorised Signatory Thiru.L.R.Muralikrishnan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai 1. Room NO.701, 7th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, # 121, Uthaman Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 2. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Aayakar Bhavan, # 108, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), #121, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 4. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Room No.304, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038. 2 5. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Room No.108, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3 (4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records in C.No.272- B/4/Centralisation/PCIT-1/2015-16 dated 04.04.2016 on file of first respondent and quash same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved against order passed by 1st respondent dated 04.04.2016, transferring case of petitioner from DCIT,Cor.Cir.1(1), Chennai to DCIT, Central Circle 3 (4), Mumbai, by exercising power conferred under Section 127 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. petitioner is stock broking entity registered with SEBI and assessee before respondent Department, more particularly, on file of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai, 3rd respondent herein. petitioner was issued with notice dated 23.02.2016 calling upon them to file their reply under section 127(2) of Income Tax Act for proposed centralisation of group case of Radford Group with 3 Mumbai. By their communication dated 02.03.2016, petitioner, after expressing their stand that they have no client registered under name and style RADFORD/RADFORD Group, has, however, stated that they have no objection for centralisation of above case with Mumbai. Thereafter, impugned order was passed by 1st respondent, transferring case of petitioner from Chennai to Mumbai as stated supra. 3. Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that when petitioner has no connection whatsoever with Radford Group, their consent given for centralisation of above Group Case with Mumbai cannot be construed as consent given by them for transferring their own case from Chennai to Mumbai, in absence of any specific details furnished in notice dated 23.02.2016 to that effect viz., about proposal of transferring petitioner's own case to Mumbai. He further submitted that when section 127 (2) specifically contemplates that reasons must be recorded in writing while transferring case, first respondent has not stated any reason in impugned order and therefore, same is non-speaking one. 4. On other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Department submitted that very issuance of notice under section 127(2) giving opportunity to petitioner to file their reply would undoubtedly indicate that Department wanted to transfer petitioner's own case to Mumbai to be tagged along with Radford Group cases and therefore, 4 contention of petitioner before this Court is not correct. She further pointed out that petitioner having given No Objection for centralisation of case with Mumbai, is not entitled to maintain this writ petition before this Court. It is her further contention that once petitioner has given no objection for transfer, 1st respondent is not expected to give any reason in impugned order for transferring case from Chennai to Mumbai. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Admittedly, petitioner is assessee on file of 3rd respondent herein namely, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1),Chennai. It is not in dispute that except notice dated 23.02.2016, no other communication was issued to petitioner indicating proposal of transferring petitioner's own case from Chennai to Mumbai. Thus, only communication dated 23.02.2016 given under section 127(2) of Income Tax Act, which is available before petitioner,reads as follows: To M/s. Aditya Birla Money Ltd 55, Ali Tower, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. Sir / Madam, Sub: Centralisation of search & seizure cases your own M/s.Radford group cases reg. 5 ---- Consequent on search/survey conducted in above group case, DGIT (Inv.), Chennai has granted approval for centralization of above group case with Mumbai. Accordingly, you are hereby given opportunity u/s.127(2) to file your reply. I am directed to request you to file your reply in this regard by 01.03.2016. Yours faithfully, K BASKARAN Income Tax Officer (Hqrs) O/o. Pr. Commissioner of Income tax Chennai-1, Chennai-34. 7. perusal of above said communication does not anywhere indicate intention of Department to transfer petitioner's own case from Chennai to Mumbai. On other hand, careful perusal of said notice would only show that respondent Department sought to centralize Radford Group case with Mumbai, for which, they sought reply from petitioner under Section 127 (2) of said Act. No doubt, petitioner has stated in their reply dated 02.03.2016 that they have no objection for centralization of above cases with Mumbai. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, thorough perusal of reply dated 6 02.03.2016 would undoubtedly indicate that petitioner has given their no objection for centralization of Radford case with Mumbai, also by specifically stating that they have no client registered under name and style RADFORD/RADFORD GROUP. In other words, it seems that petitioner has given such no objection only for centralization of Radford Group cases at Mumbai and there is no indication whatsoever in their reply expressing their willingness for transferring their own case from Chennai to Mumbai. Therefore, I am of view that very notice issued under section 127 (2) to petitioner dated 23.02.2016 is bereft of material particulars indicating specifically that petitioner case is sought to be transferred from Chennai to Mumbai to be tagged along with Radford Group cases. In absence of such material particulars, I do not think that No Objection given by petitioner, that too, for centralization of Radford Group cases can have any barring or relevance on impugned transfer order. Apart from above said fact, it is curious to note that 1st respondent, while passing order on 04.04.2016 has not at all referred to reply given by petitioner on 02.03.2016. Hence, it is bounden duty of 1st respondent to record reasons for transfer, especially, when section 127(2) contemplates recording of such reasons. In this case, it has not been done so. 8. Considering all these aspects, I am of view that matter has to go back to 1st respondent for passing fresh order after issuing notice to 7 petitioner with material particulars and after hearing their objections. Accordingly,, writ petition is allowed and impugned order of 1st respondent dated 04.04.2016 is set aside. Consequently, matter is remitted back to 1st respondent for passing fresh orders after issuing due notice to petitioner. 1st respondent shall issue such notice to petitioner within period of two weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of said notice, petitioner shall give their reply within period of two weeks thereafter. On receipt of such reply, 1st respondent shall pass order under section 127 (2) within period of three weeks thereafter, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any view on merits on matter, touching upon reasons for transferring petitioner's case from Chennai to Mumbai, as it is for 1st respondent to consider and decide after considering objections raised by petitioner. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 05.06.2017 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No vsi/cgi 8 K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J. Vsi/cgi To 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai 1. Room No.701, 7th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, # 121, Uthaman Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 2. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Aayakar Bhavan, # 108, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), #121, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 4. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Room No.304, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038. 5. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Room No.108, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3 (4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. W.P.No.847 of 2017 9 05.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in Aditya Birla Money Limited v. Pr CIT, Chennai-1/The DGIT(Investigation), Chennai/The DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai/The DGIT(Investigation), Mumbai/The CCIT, CC-2, Mumabi/The DCIT, CC-3(4), Mumbai