CWP/3057/2023 of SARABJIT SINGH Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AND OTHERS on 23 July 2026

1. Petition u quashing passed by responden has been tr

2. petitioner Jalandhar, business is Vide not Commissi

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA AT CHANDIGA AT CHANDIGA AT CHANDIGA ingh

Versus

Commissioner of Income Tax-1, and others

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DE DE DE DE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HA Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate fo

Mrs. Urvashi Dugga, Senior S Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior St Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the ET KAUR J ET KAUR J ET KAUR J ET KAUR JEEWAN EEWAN EEWAN EEWAN, J. , J. , J. , J. The petitioner-assessee has under Article 226 of the Con of the impugned order dated y the Principal Commissioner nt No.1, whereby, the jurisdictio ransferred from Amritsar Circle Learned counsel for the p is having various business offi Batala and Pathankot, howe s at Amritsar, Punjab, while his tice dated 27.12.2022 (Ann oner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA ARH ARH ARH ARH CWP CWP CWP CWP-3057

3057-20

23 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Reserved on : 16.07.2026 Reserved on : 16.07.2026 Reserved on : 16.07.2026 Reserved on : 16.07.2026 Pronounced on : Pronounced on : Pronounced on : Pronounced on : 23-07-2026 Uploaded on : Uploaded on : Uploaded on : Uploaded on : 24-07-2026

...Petitioner

...Respondents EEPAK SIBAL EEPAK SIBAL EEPAK SIBAL EEPAK SIBAL ARPREET KAUR JEEWAN ARPREET KAUR JEEWAN ARPREET KAUR JEEWAN ARPREET KAUR JEEWAN or the petitioner. Standing Counsel with tanding Counsel and respondents. s filed present Civil Writ nstitution of India, seeking 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-6), of Income Tax-1, Amritsar- on over the petitioner’s cases to Ludhiana Circle. petitioner contends that the fices in the area of Amritsar, ever, his principal place of residence is also at Amritsar. nexure P-4), the Principal r, had proposed to transfer the ATUL SETHI

Chandigarh

CWP-3057-20

jurisdiction to ACIT/D

3. while pass opportunit receiving request da after 16.01 detailed re impugned principles

4. responden were carri Act, 1961 found that in many bu the PAN Circle-1, A the petition order was petition is

5. the paper-b

6. P-4), the p n of petitioner’s cases from AC DCIT Central Circle-2, Ludhiana Learned counsel for the pet sing the impugned order dated ty of hearing was not given t the notice (Annexure P-4), the ated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-5) 1.2023 as his Chartered Account epresentation was to be filed order was passed in a mecha of natural justice. Per contra, referring to the nt, learned counsel contends that ied out on 26.11.2021, under Se (for short, ‘the Act’), in the case t the key person of the group, Sh usiness activities with the petitio of the petitioner, i.e. ALQPS2 Amritsar to Circle-2, Ludhiana. ner-assessee filed his reply on 0 s passed after considering repl liable to be dismissed. We have considered the afore book. It is not disputed that after petitioner had sent a reply (Anne

CIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Amritsar a. titioner further contends that 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-6), to the petitioner since after petitioner had sent a written for adjournment of the matter tant (CA) was on leave and a by his CA. However, the anical manner, violating the reply filed on behalf of the t Search & Seizure operations ection 132 of the Income Tax e of one Jujhar Group. It was hri Gurdeep Singh, is involved oner-Sarabjit Singh, therefore, 2907P was transferred from It is further contended that 06.01.2023, and the impugned ly of the assessee, as such, esaid contentions and perused receiving notice (Annexure exure P-5), wherein he made a ATUL SETHI

Chandigarh

CWP-3057-20

request for sought an The releva

7.7.7.7. Section 12 Commissio assessee. T be passed a

8. r adjournment of the proceeding opportunity to file a detailed re ant portion of the reply reads as u

“The detailed representatio my counsel Mr. Sanjiv Mehtra Ch Chartered Accountant. As he is o that the matter may kindly b 16.01.2023.” It is also not disputed that whi 7 of the Act, the Director Gener oner is required to give a reasonab The transfer order from one jurisdic after recording reasons. Section 127 of the Act reads as

127.

127.

127.

127. Power to transfer cases. Power to transfer cases. Power to transfer cases. Power to transfer cases.—

(1) The Principal Director Genera Chief Commissioner or Chie Commissioner or Commissioner reasonable opportunity of being h possible to do so, and after reco transfer any case from one or mo to him (whether with or withou other Assessing Officer or Asse without concurrent jurisdiction) al

(2) Where the Assessing Officer o the case is to be transferred and th Officers to whom the case is to be the same Principal Director G Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or Commissioner,—

(a) where the Principal General or Principal C

or P Commissioners to whom

s beyond 16.01.2023 and also epresentation through his CA. under:- ion in this matter will be made by hartered Account, PC Mehra & Co. on leave these days. It is requested be adjourned to any date after ile exercising the powers under ral, Chief Commissioner or the le opportunity of hearing to the ction to another jurisdiction can under:- al or Director General or Principal ef Commissioner or Principal may, after giving the assessee a heard in the matter, wherever it is cording his reasons for doing so, ore Assessing Officers subordinate ut concurrent jurisdiction) to any essing Officers (whether with or lso subordinate to him. or Assessing Officers from whom the Assessing Officer or Assessing e transferred are not subordinate to General or Director General or r Chief Commissioner or Principal — Directors General or Directors Chief Commissioners or Chief Principal or m such Assessing Officers are ATUL SETHI

Chandigarh subordinate are in agreem General or Director Commissioner or Chie Commissioner or Commiss case is to be transferred reasonable opportunity o wherever it is possible to reasons for doing so, pass t

(b) where the Principal General or Principal C Commissioners or P Commissioners aforesaid transferring the case may, or any such Principal Dire or Principal Chief Commis Principal Commissioner or by notification in the Of behalf.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or s require any such opportunity to be any Assessing Officer or Asses without concurrent jurisdiction) t Assessing Officers (whether jurisdiction) and officers are situ place.

(4) The transfer of a case under may be made at any stage of the necessary the re-issue of any notic Officers or Assessing Officers from Explanation.—In section 120 and relation to any person whose na direction issued thereunder, means respect of any year which may be or direction or which may have b date, and includes also all proceed commenced after the date of suc any year.”

ment, then the Principal Director General or Principal Chief ef Commissioner or Principal ssioner from whose jurisdiction the may, after giving the assessee a of being heard in the matter, to do so, and after recording his the order; Directors General or Directors Chief Commissioners or Chief Principal or are not in agreement, the order similarly, be passed by the Board ector General or Director General issioner or Chief Commissioner or r Commissioner as the Board may, Official Gazette, authorise in this sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be given where the transfer is from ssing Officers (whether with or to any other Assessing Officer or with or without concurrent uated in the same city, locality or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) proceedings, and shall not render ice already issued by the Assessing om whom the case is transferred. d this section, the word “case”, in ame is specified in any order or ns all proceedings under this Act in e pending on the date of such order been completed on or before such dings under this Act which may be ch order or direction in respect of ATUL SETHI

Chandigarh

CWP-3057-20

9. furnish det concerned 12.01.2023 been passe petitioner. down in Se given to the

10. petitioner w reasonable

11. set aside; a reasonable

12.

13. accordingly

23-07-202 atulsethi

Whet Whet

As per the reply filed by the pe tailed representation after 16.01.20 authority and the impugned ord 3 (Annexure P-6). In such circums ed without affording reasonable The said order is not legally sust ection 127 of the Act i.e. ‘reasonab he assessee’ has not been adhered to In view of the above, we are of was required to be heard before pas opportunity has not been given to h Consequently, present petition and the respondent-authorities shal opportunity of hearing to the petiti It is made clear there are no obs Pending application(s) if any, y.

[HA [HA [HA [HA

ther speaking / reasoned : ther Reportable :

etitioner-assessee, his request to 023 was not considered by the der was passed before that on stances, the impugned order has opportunity of hearing to the tainable since the condition laid ble opportunity of hearing to be o. f the considered opinion that the ssing of the impugned order, but him. is allowed; impugned order is l pass a fresh order after giving ioner. servations on merits. , shall also stand disposed of [DEEPAK SIBAL] [DEEPAK SIBAL] [DEEPAK SIBAL] [DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE ARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] ARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] ARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] ARPREET KAUR JEEWAN]

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Yes No

Yes No ATUL SETHI

Chandigarh