W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 BEFORE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.02.2020 CORAM: HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 and WMP(MD)Nos.13453, 13454 & 23079 of 2019 V.V.Minerals rep.by its Partner S.Veikundarajan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 Madurai, Kulamangalam Main Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai 625 002. 3.The Deputy Director of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 Madurai, Kulamangalam Main Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai 625002. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of certiorari calling for records of 1st respondent comprised in impugned order No. 8/2018-19 bearing C.No.337/Pr.CIT-2/MDU/2018-19 dated 19.2.2019 and quash same. 1/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 For Petitioners : Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan for Mr.V.Perumal For R1 : Mrs.S.Srimathy Standing Counsel For R2 & R3 : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar Senior Standing Counsel Assisted by K.G.Usha Rani ORDER petitioner, which is partnership firm, has laid challenge to order dated 19.02.2019 passed by first respondent in transferring cases to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle-2, Madurai, as violative of principles of natural justice. 2.The petitioner states that it has been dealing in mineral industry and has been complying with all statutory requirements in Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.] petitioner has been filing returns regularly as per Act. income of petitioner is subject to scrutiny / assessment every year and orders were passed under Section 143(3) of Act. While so, officials of Income Tax Department came to premises of petitioner and effected search including residence of his 2/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 partners and his relatives on 25.10.2018 under Section 132 of Act. 3.The proceeding under Section 132 of Act was concluded against petitioner without any incriminating materials being found against him. Later, petitioner received notice dated 28.01.2019 from first respondent under Section 127(2) of Act, proposing transfer of petitioner's cases to DCIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai. petitioner was also directed to give his response and personal hearing was fixed on 12.02.2019. petitioner has also sent reply on 16.02.2019 seeking certain documents in order to enable him to file objections. However, request of petitioner was ignored, notifying date of hearing as 18.02.2019. Though petitioner insisted that documents requested are vital for petitioner to respond and make his objections, without even furnishing documents sought for, impugned order came to be passed. said order is challenged in this writ petition contending that same is in contravention of Section 127(2) of Act, as first respondent has not complied with mandatory requirements for transfer of cases to DCIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai, on ground that centralization of group 3/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 of cases is essential for effective and coordinated investigation. 4.Out of 20 cases, only Sl.No.20 in schedule - I is with ITO Ward 4, Virudhunagar. Rest of cases are in Tirunelveli. According to petitioner, even clubbing case of Simarana, which is only one pending in Virudhunagar, is to show that members of family are having assessment in different places. It is pointed out that said Simarana is neither partner nor shareholder in any of firms or companies of petitioner. Therefore, including case of said Simarana is deliberate and just to show that members of family are having assessment in different places. 5. When this matter was taken up for admission on 05.08.2019, this Court stayed operation of impugned order, which was extended subsequently. 6. Refuting allegations of petitioner and seeking to vacate interim order, respondents filed WMP (MD)No.23079 of 2019 along with counter-affidavit dated 19.11.2019. Even prior to filing of said petition, first respondent filed counter- affidavit, wherein, among other things, it is stated that search 4/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 proceedings under Section 132 of Act was conducted in premises of petitioner and there is no provision contained in Act mandating them to furnish copies of documents to assessee, which were seized at time of search, during 127 proceedings. 7. It is also stated that it is standard procedure of Department that after search, assessees, to be centralized are identified and proposal for centralization is put up to Director General of Income Tax (DGIT). From DGIT, proposal goes to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) for concurrence, who in turn, forwards proposals to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). PCIT, thereafter, will transfer exercising powers under section 127 of Act and after following due procedures contemplated therein from original Assessing Officer to Assessing Officer in Central Circle and thus, there is no pre-determination on part of first respondent, as alleged by petitioner. It is, thus, stated that since procedure contemplated under Act is followed properly, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. second respondent in counter dated 19.11.2019 5/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 has stated that after search proceedings, material seized were transferred to Central Circle , which were created exclusively for assessment of search cases, and effective assessment would be made therein, based on evidence collected during search. second respondent relied on instructions issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes in F.No.286/88/2008-IT (Inv.II), dated 17.09.2008, which lays down procedure to transfer such search cases to central circles for effective assessment. 9. second respondent alleged that undisclosed income of petitioner group companies for Financial Years from 2011-12 to 2016-17 runs to tune of Rs.2,262 Crores, as per evidence unearthed during search and it is one among largest search in recent past in entire country. It is claimed that petitioner was given opportunity to raise objections to reasons stated in show cause notice for transfer and after following mandates contained under Section 127 of Act, transfer order was passed. 10. It is also stated that Income Tax Offices in few 6/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 places / Revenue Districts are centralized to Central Circle. Similarly, there is no Central Circle at Tirunelveli, and Virudhunagar, Theni, Tirunelveli and Karaikudi, though have their own Income Tax Offices, attached to Central Circle is in Madurai. second respondent also claimed that to augment income to Revenue, which runs to several Crores, assessment proceedings have to be completed by Centralized Circle without any delay, for which, it sought for dismissal of this writ petition. 11. learned counsel for petitioner contends that reason stated by authorities for transfer as 'interlacing and intermixing' of business activities cannot be justified without substantiating same. To justify this stand, petitioner relied on decision of this court in Noorul Islam Educational Trust V. CIT, [W.P (MD) 60 of 2009], wherein, it is held that there must be specific finding that there are interlacing and interconnection of funds and materials to support same. Unless said conditions are satisfied and specific finding is given to that effect, transfer cannot be justified. Though said view taken by learned Single Judge was reversed by Division Bench, on further appeal to Supreme Court of India in case reported in (2017) 12 7/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 SCC 805, decision of Division Bench was set aside. 12.The next objection raised by petitioner is that notice calling upon petitioner to give any objection does not have any reference to CBDT instruction No.286/88/2008, Income Tax Department on 17.09.2008. Yet another contention of petitioner is that impugned order is liable to be set aside as first respondent predetermined whole issue and obtained approval of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, which is long before impugned order was passed. 13.The further contention of petitioner is that show cause notice was issued in mechanical manner and without considering objections raised by petitioner seeking documents, on basis of said show cause notice, transfer has been ordered. In support of this contention, petitioner relied on decision of this court in MRL Postnet Private Ltd. V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 11651. 14. learned counsel for petitioner further 8/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 contended that impugned order is vitiated for reason that assessee/the petitioner herein was given reasonable opportunity of being heard in this matter and also for not recording reasons for such transfer. learned counsel for petitioner, in order to substantiate said contention of not being heard and for not giving reasons for transfer, would draw attention of Court to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1976 1 SCC 1001 [M/s.Ajantha Industries and others V. CBDT, New Delhi & Ors] and 1990 2 SCC 48 [Management of M/s.M.S.Nally Bharat Engineering Co.Ltd., V. State of Bihar and others]. 15. learned counsel for petitioner also contended that assessee should be informed of reason and grounds for proposal. If reason for transfer is not communicated in show cause notice, opportunity will be illusionary and not effective one. In support of said contention he relied on decision of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vijayashanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and others, (1991) 187 ITR 405 and also submitted that aforesaid view has been elaborately dealt with and approved in M/s.Chotanagapur Industrial Gases (P) Ltd., 9/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 Vs. CIT (1998) 233 ITR 377 (Cal.) and followed in Mul Chand Malu Vs. Union of India in WP (C) 5828 OF 2015, etc. batch, dated 25.02.2016. 16.On other hand, learned Standing Counsels for respondents contended that Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/the first respondent is vested with powers under Section 127 of Act to transfer search cases in his jurisdiction to particular officer in any station for better co-ordination and investigation of group cases. In support of this contention, decision of this court reported in (1999) 104 Taxman 566 (Madras), [General Exporters V. Commissioner of IT] is relied upon, wherein, it is held that transfer of case for coordianated investigation cannot be found fault with. 17.The learned Standing Counsels for respondents further stated that admittedly there is no objection from side of petitioner for detailed and coordinated investigation. But, with respect to furnishing copies of documents to assessees in order to make their objections against transferring of cases under Section 127 of Act, there is no mandatory provisions in 10/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 Act or any judicial pronouncements necessitating same. In support of said contention, respondents relied on case in Virendra Kumar and others V. CIT reported in (2006) 283 ITR 541, wherein it is observed as under: contention of petitioner that department should have furnished information (as claimed by them in their reply) is not at all sound as department cannot be compelled or required at initial stage to disclose material or information as it may embrace or prejudice assessment. legal position is crystal clear and settled by catena of decisions of this Court and Apex Court on this issue. .... 18.The learned counsels for respondents reiterating standard procedure as stated in counter-affidavit would submit that there is no pre-determination on part of first respondent, as alleged by petitioner and issuance of notice is not just formality but opportunity to raise objections, which was duly complied with by respondents. 19. Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Standing Counsels for Revenue and perused materials available on record. 11/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 20. Before delving into merits of case, it is apt to reproduce Section 127(1) and (2) of Act as hereunder : 127. Power to transfer cases - (1) Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard in 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 Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom case is to be transferred and Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom case is to be transferred are not subordinate to same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) where Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners,. to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction case is to be transferred may, after giving assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard in matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass order; (b) where Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, order transferring case may, similarly, be passed by Board or any such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as Board may, by 12/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 notification in Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf." 21. twin conditions to be complied with by first respondent is (i) assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard ; and (ii) reasons for transfer should be recorded. Admittedly, show cause notice dated 28.01.2019 was issued to petitioner on 28.01.2019, in terms of Section 127(2) of Act giving them about two weeks time to submit their objections and reasons for proposed transfer, as stated therein, is that detailed, coordinated and centralized investigation. petitioner sent letter on 31.01.2019 expressing their no objection for detailed investigation and co-ordination, however, stated that transfer is irrelevant for said purpose and also sought time to file their objections. They also sought for relevant documents and specific reasons for proposed transfer. Subsequently, notice dated 11.02.2019 fixing date of hearing on 18.02.2019 was sent to petitioner. petitioner reiterating its previous stand and requirements sent letter dated 16.02.2019. Thereafter, impugned order came to be passed. 22. judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in MRL 13/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 Postnet Private Ltd. V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 11651, is relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner that in absence of reasons for transfer, said order would have to be construed as one passed without application of mind. relevant portion of said order reads as under: "9.No doubt, show cause notice issued to petitioner stated some reasons. But at same time, when such reasons are opposed and reply is filed by assessee objecting transfer, first respondent has to necessarily record his reasons with certain facts and circumstances warranting transfer and to justify that centralised/coordinated investigation is required in particular case. No doubt, learned counsel for respondents contended that since reasons are clearly stated in show cause notice, they need not be reiterated once again in order rejecting objections against transfer. I do not find any justification on such submission. If such view is accepted, then there would be no meaning or purpose in issuing show cause notice. Needless to say that reasons stated in show cause notice are only to be construed as prima facie view of Authority issuing such show cause notice and not as his conclusive view or finding in respect of subject matter in issue. Therefore, any reason stated in show cause notice is always subject to change or affirmation depending upon consideration of objection raised against propose made in show cause notice. Therefore, order passed in pursuant to show 14/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 cause notice, should necessarily deal with reasons stated in show cause notice as well as objections raised against those reasons. Thus, after considering reasons and objections, final view of Authority should be made available evidently on face of order itself with reasons and discussions. If not, order passed without recording reasons, would have to be construed as one out of non application of mind." 23. In (1976) 1 SCC 1001, M/s.Ajantha Industries and others V. CBDT, New Delhi & Ors., Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "10.The reason for recording of reasons in order and making these reasons known to assessee is to enable opportunity to assessee to approach High Court under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution or even this Court under Article 136 of Constitution in appropriate case for challenging order, inter alia, either on ground that it is mala fide or arbitration or that it is based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Whether such writ or special leave application ultimately fails is not relevant for decision of question. 11.We are clearly of opinion that requirement of recording reasons under section 127(1) is mandatory direction under law and non-communication thereof is not saved by showing that reasons exist in file although not communicated to assessee. ...... 15/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 15.When law requires reasons to be recorded in particular order affecting prejudicially interests of any person, who can challenge order in court, it ceases to be mere administrative order and vice of violation of principles of natural justice on account of omission to communicate reasons is not expiated. 24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1990) 2 SCC 48, Management of M/s.M.S.Nally Bharat Engineering Co.Ltd., V. State of Bihar and others, has held as follows: "21.A case with not dissimilar problem was in Pannalal Binjraj and Anr. v. Union of India, [1957] 31 ITR 565. There Commissioner of Income Tax by power vested under section 5(7A) of Income Tax Act, 1922, transferred assessee's case from one Income Tax Officer to another without hearing assessee. Section 5(7A) of Income Tax Act, 1922 provided: "The Commissioner of Income-Tax may transfer any case from one Income-Tax Officer subordinate to him to another, and Central Board of Revenue may transfer any case from any one Income- Tax Officer to another. Such transfer may be made at any stage of proceedings, and shall not render necessary re-issue of any notice already issued by Income tax Officer from whom case is transferred." 22.This Section did not provide for affording opportunity to assessee before transferring his case from 16/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 one Income Tax Officer to another. assessee challenged constitutional validity of Section. This Court upheld its validity on ground that it is provision for administrative convenience. N.H. Bhagwati, J., speaking for this Court, however remarked (at 589): " ..... it would be prudent if principles of natural justice are followed, where circumstances permit, before any order of transfer under section 5(7A) of Act is made by Commissioner of Income-Tax or Central Board of Revenue, as case may be, and notice is given to party affected and he is afforded reasonable opportunity of representing his views on question and reasons of order are reduced however briefly to writing ... There is no presumption against bona fide or honesty of assessee and normally income-tax authorities would not be justified in refusing to assessee reasonable opportunity of representing his views when any order to prejudice of normal procedure laid down in section 64(1) and (2) of Act is sought to be made against him, be it transfer from one Income-Tax Officer within State to Income- Tax Officer without it, except of course where very object of transfer would be frustrated if notice was given to party affected." 23.Section 5(7A) was replaced by Section 127 of Income Tax Act, 1961, which now makes it obligatory to record reasons in making order of transfer after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee in matter. In Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Taxes, 17/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 [1976] 2 SCR 884 this Court considered validity of transfer order passed under Section 127 and it was held that merely recording of reasons on file was not sufficient. It was essential to give reasons to affected party. order of transfer in that case was quashed for not communicating reasons to assessee." 25. In Sahara Hospitality Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of IT - 8, reported in (2013) 258 CTR (BOM) 275, it is held by Division Bench of High Court of Bombay as follows: "16. .... introduction in Section 127(1) and (2) of 1961 Act, indicates legislative intent of providing assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard in cases falling under sub sections (1) & (2) thereof. 17.In conclusion therefore we hold that word 'may' in section 127 should read as 'shall'. requirement of giving assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard wherever it is possible to do so, is mandatory. discretion of authorities is only as to what is reasonable opportunity in given case and on question whether it is possible in given case to provide opportunity." 26. Another Division Bench of High Court of Bombay in case of Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 296, has held as follows : 18/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 "11. Again there cannot be any dispute regarding some observation which has to be noticed that co-ordinating investigation can always be good ground for transfer from one place to another. What Apex Court has observed in Ajantha Industries (supra) is that while transferring csae on ground of co-ordinated investigation, some reason has to be given by commissioner which reveals that why it is necessary to transfer case for purpose of co-ordinated investigation. In our view unfortunately, Commissioner of Income Tax apart from stating that case has been transferred for co-ordinating investigation has not given any other reason. Impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside. Matter is however remanded back to Commissioner of Income Tax who shall pass fresh order under Section 127(1) of Income Tax Act after giving opportunity to petitioner and pass order in accordance with law after recording his reasons." 27. In Devidas Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1993) 200 ITR 697 (BOM), in paragraph - 9, it is observed as follows: "9.Thus in matter of objection to jurisdiction of assessing officer and transfer of case, valuable right of assessee is clearly involved, which cannot be adversly adjudicated upon without affording him opportunity of hearing and disclosing him reasons for not accepting his point of view." 19/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 28. aforementioned decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts make it clear that providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and reasons for transfer are necessary before effecting transfer. As per said decisions, proper reasons have to be adduced for purpose of centralisation of cases. But, in impugned order no such reasons have been given by first respondent, and it has been simply stated that centralisation of group of cases is essential, which cannot be sole ground for transferring cases. 29. With respect to contention of petitioner that no reason was assigned for transfer, learned counsel appearing for respondents relied on decision of Gujarat High Court in Shree Ram Vessel Scrap Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV [Special Civil Application No.16886 of 2012] wherein, it is held as follows : "We do not find that Commissioner committed any error either in law or in facts. Reason for transfer was clearly indicated in show cause notice namely, for centralisation of cases and for effective and coordinated investigation. Such reasons were further elaborated while dealing with and disposing of objections of petitioners in final order of transfer. ...." 20/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 30. said judgment of Gujarat High Court is squarely applicable to instant case, as it cannot be stated that impugned order lacks reason. It cannot be also stated that first respondent did not provide opportunity to petitioner to give objections and on other hand, he failed to give proper objections for transfer within time stipulated, instead, he sought for documents to make his objections. 31. learned counsels for respondents also relied upon case in Advantage Strategic Consulting (P) Ltd. V. PCIT, Chennai reported in (2017) 88 Taxman.com 104 (Mad), wherein this court held as follows: "Where assessee's case was transferred from one place to another in same city, in view of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 127, assessee could not plead for opportunity of hearing before order of transfer". 32. In present case, transfer was made from Tirunelveli to Madurai Central Circle and though not within same locality or same city. petitioner challenged impugned order passed under section 127(2) and not under Section 127(3). 21/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 Therefore, said case is not applicable to facts of present case. 33.Learned counsels for Respondents placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Patel KNR JV Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 76 taxmann.com 11 (SC), to drive home point that where assessee did not challenge order of transfer of its case at earliest letting all believe that such transfer was accepted, assessee should be barred from challenging same on exercise of jurisdiction by new authority. In said case Hon'ble Apex Court refused to interfere with judgment of First Bench of High Court of Bombay, in case in Patel KNR JV Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 50 taxmann.com 82 (Bombay), wherein, it was held as follows : 5.We have considered rival submissions. Before examining merits of impugned order dated August 31, 2012, we shall first examine objection of Revenue that petition ought not to be entertained on account of delay. In this case, impugned order was passed on August 31, 2012. petitioner states that impugned order of transfer of its case from Mumbai to Hyderabad was received by it on December 7, 2012. petitioner has filed petition only on February 11, 2013, i.e., after about two months after 22/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 receipt of impugned order. Further, even after filing petition, petitioner chose not to move petition and seek any relief of interim or ad interim nature staying implementation of transfer of its case by impugned order dated August 31, 2012. ..... This inordinate delay on part of petitioner has been explained only by stating that impugned order dated August 31, 2012, under section 127 of Act was received only on December 7, 2012. Thereafter, delay in filing petition in court of over two months and neglect in moving court to seek stay on impugned order dated August 31, 2012, is unexplained. 34. In case on hand, impugned order came to be passed on 19.02.2019 and till issuance of assessment notices dated 15.07.2019 under Section 153A of Act, petitioner did not challenge order of transfer and there is no explanation for delay in challenge. Hence, petitioner is barred from challenging same in exercise of jurisdiction by new authority and this Court need not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution to interfere with impugned order. Though other grounds raised by petitioner have also no merit-acceptance, without delving further into those grounds, this Court is of view that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on these grounds. 23/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. mj/gg 35. In result, this writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 28.02.2020 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes mj/gg To 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 Madurai, Kulamangalam Main Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai 625 002. 3.The Deputy Director of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 Madurai, Kulamangalam Main Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai 625 002. W.P(MD)No.16869 of 2019 24/24 http://www.judis.nic.in V.V.Minerals v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai / Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2, Madurai / Deputy Director of Income-tax, Central Circle 2 Madurai