CWP-3057-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sarabjit Singh Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Amritsar and others CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: HARPREET KAUR J HARPREET KAUR J HARPREET KAUR J HARPREET KAUR J 1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing of the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax respondent No.1, whereby, the has been transferred from Amritsar 2. petitioner is having various business offices in the area of Amritsar, Jalandhar, Batala and Pathankot, however, his principal place of business is at Amritsar, Punjab Vide notice dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH Sarabjit Singh Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar and others CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the Mrs. Urvashi Dugga, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the respondents. HARPREET KAUR J HARPREET KAUR J HARPREET KAUR J HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN EEWAN EEWAN EEWAN, J. , J. , J. , J. The petitioner-assessee has filed present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing of the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax respondent No.1, whereby, the jurisdiction over the petitioner has been transferred from Amritsar Circle Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is having various business offices in the area of Amritsar, Jalandhar, Batala and Pathankot, however, his principal place of business is at Amritsar, Punjab, while his residence is also at Amritsar Vide notice dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CWP CWP CWP CWP----3057 3057 3057 3057----20 20 20 2023 23 23 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 : 22223333----00007777----2222000022226666 Uploaded on : Uploaded on : Uploaded on : Uploaded on : 22224444----00007777----2222000022226666 ...Petitioner ...Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN for the petitioner. Dugga, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the respondents. assessee has filed present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar- jurisdiction over the petitioner’s cases Circle to Ludhiana Circle. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is having various business offices in the area of Amritsar, Jalandhar, Batala and Pathankot, however, his principal place of his residence is also at Amritsar. Vide notice dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P-4), the Principal , Amritsar, had proposed to transfer the ATUL SETHI 2026.07.24 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP-3057-2023 jurisdiction of petitioner’s cases from ACIT/DCIT, Circle to ACIT/DCIT Cen 3. while passing the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner since after receiving the notice (Annexure P request dated 06.01.2023 after 16.01.2023 as his Chartered Accountant (CA) was on leave and a detailed representation was to be filed by his CA. However, the impugned order w principles of natural justice. 4. respondent, learned counsel contends that were carried out on 26.11.2021 Act, 1961 found that the key person of the group in many business activities with the petitioner the PAN of Circle-1, Amritsar to Circle the petitioner order was passed after considering reply of the assessee, as such, petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. the paper-book. 6. P-4), the petitioner had sent a reply (Annexure P 2023 -2- jurisdiction of petitioner’s cases from ACIT/DCIT, Circle to ACIT/DCIT Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that while passing the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner since after receiving the notice (Annexure P-4), the petitioner had dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-5) for adjournment of the matter after 16.01.2023 as his Chartered Accountant (CA) was on leave and a detailed representation was to be filed by his CA. However, the impugned order was passed in a mechanical manner principles of natural justice. Per contra, referring to the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, learned counsel contends that were carried out on 26.11.2021, under Section Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), in the case of found that the key person of the group, Shri Gurdeep Singh in many business activities with the petitioner the PAN of the petitioner, i.e. ALQPS2907P 1, Amritsar to Circle-2, Ludhiana. It is further contended that the petitioner-assessee filed his reply on 06.01.2023 order was passed after considering reply of the assessee, as such, petition is liable to be dismissed. We have considered the aforesaid contentions and perused book. It is not disputed that after receiving notice (Annexu 4), the petitioner had sent a reply (Annexure P jurisdiction of petitioner’s cases from ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Amritsar 2, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that while passing the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-6), opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner since after , the petitioner had sent a written for adjournment of the matter after 16.01.2023 as his Chartered Accountant (CA) was on leave and a detailed representation was to be filed by his CA. However, the as passed in a mechanical manner, violating the , referring to the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, learned counsel contends that Search & Seizure operations under Section 132 of the Income Tax in the case of one Jujhar Group. It was Shri Gurdeep Singh, is involved in many business activities with the petitioner-Sarabjit Singh, therefore, the petitioner, i.e. ALQPS2907P was transferred from 2, Ludhiana. It is further contended that assessee filed his reply on 06.01.2023, and the impugned order was passed after considering reply of the assessee, as such, have considered the aforesaid contentions and perused It is not disputed that after receiving notice (Annexure 4), the petitioner had sent a reply (Annexure P-5), wherein he made a ATUL SETHI 2026.07.24 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP-3057-2023 request for adjournment of the proceedings beyond 16.01.2023 and also sought an opportunity to file a detailed representation through his CA. The relevant portion of the reply read 7.7.7.7. Section 127 of the Act, the Director General, Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner is required to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The tran be passed after recording reasons. 8. 2023 -3- request for adjournment of the proceedings beyond 16.01.2023 and also sought an opportunity to file a detailed representation through his CA. The relevant portion of the reply reads as under: “The detailed representation in this matter will be made by my counsel Mr. Sanjiv Mehtra Chartered Account, PC Mehra & Co. Chartered Accountant. As he is on leave these days. It is requested that the matter may kindly be adjourned to any dat 16.01.2023.” It is also not disputed that while exercising the powers under Section 127 of the Act, the Director General, Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner is required to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The transfer order from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction can be passed after recording reasons. Section 127 of the Act reads as under: 127. 127. 127. 127. Power to transfer cases. Power to transfer cases. Power to transfer cases. Power to transfer cases.— — — — (1) The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the 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 the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate the same Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) where the Principal Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner Commissioners or Principal Commissioner Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are request for adjournment of the proceedings beyond 16.01.2023 and also sought an opportunity to file a detailed representation through his CA. s as under:- “The detailed representation in this matter will be made by my counsel Mr. Sanjiv Mehtra Chartered Account, PC Mehra & Co. Chartered Accountant. As he is on leave these days. It is requested that the matter may kindly be adjourned to any date after It is also not disputed that while exercising the powers under Section 127 of the Act, the Director General, Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner is required to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the sfer order from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction can Section 127 of the Act reads as under:- (1) The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is ible 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 thout concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal — (a) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief or Principal Commissioners or to whom such Assessing Officers are ATUL SETHI 2026.07.24 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP-3057-2023 2023 -4- subordinate are in agreement, then the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the (b) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioner Commissioners or Principal Commissioner Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be p or any such Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) and officers are situated in the same city, locality or place. (4) The transfer of a case under sub may be made at any stage of the proceedings necessary the re-issue of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officers or Assessing Officers from whom the case is transferred. Explanation.—In section 120 and this section, the word “case”, in relation to any person whose nam direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date of such order or direction in respect of any year.” subordinate are in agreement, then the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal ommissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief or Principal Commissioners or aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) and officers are situated in the same city, locality or (4) The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render issue of any notice already issued by the Assessing or Assessing Officers from whom the case is transferred. In section 120 and this section, the word “case”, in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such ll proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date of such order or direction in respect of ATUL SETHI 2026.07.24 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP-3057-2023 9. furnish detailed representation after 16.01.2023 was not considered by the concerned authority and the impugned order was passed before that on 12.01.2023 (Annexure P been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said order is not legally sustainable since the condition laid down in Section 127 of the Act i.e. given to the assessee 10. petitioner was required to be heard before passing of the impugned order, but reasonable 11. set aside; and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. 13. accordingly. 22223333----00007777----222200002222 atulsethi Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : 2023 -5- As per the reply filed by the petitioner furnish detailed representation after 16.01.2023 was not considered by the concerned authority and the impugned order was passed before that on 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-6). In such circumstan been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said order is not legally sustainable since the condition laid down in Section 127 of the Act i.e. ‘reasonable opportunity of hearing to be given to the assessee’ has not been adhered to. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that petitioner was required to be heard before passing of the impugned order, but reasonable opportunity has not been given to him. Consequently, present petition is allowed; impugned order is and the respondent-authorities shall pass a fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear there are no observations on merits. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. 22226666 [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : As per the reply filed by the petitioner-assessee, his request to furnish detailed representation after 16.01.2023 was not considered by the concerned authority and the impugned order was passed before that on 6). In such circumstances, the impugned order has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said order is not legally sustainable since the condition laid reasonable opportunity of hearing to be has not been adhered to. , we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner was required to be heard before passing of the impugned order, but opportunity has not been given to him. Consequently, present petition is allowed; impugned order is authorities shall pass a fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear there are no observations on merits. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of [DEEPAK SIBAL] [DEEPAK SIBAL] [DEEPAK SIBAL] [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Yes No Yes No ATUL SETHI 2026.07.24 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh