Page No.# 1/11 GAHC030008682025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/98/2025 Smt. Lalhmangaihzuali C/o Malsawma R/o H. No. A 24/1 Near Presbyterian Church Armed Veng N Aizawl-796008 Mizoram VERSUS Union of India and 10 Ors. through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Govt. of India having its office at Central Secretariat North Block New Delhi 2:Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Shillong having its office at Aayakar Bhawan Mahatma Gandhi Road Shillong Meghalaya Pin Code - 793001 3:Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Shillong having its office a Aayakar Bhawan Mahatma Gandhi Road Page No.# 2/11 Shillong Meghalaya Pin Code - 793001 4:Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 Silchar Income Tax Office Cr Building Circuit House Road Silchar Assam PIN - 788001 5:Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Guwahati having its office at Aayakar Bhawan Christian Basti G.S. Road Guwahati Assam Pin Code - 781005 6:Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1 Guwahati having its office at Aayakar Bhawan Christian Basti G.S. Road Guwahati Assam Pin Code - 781005 7:Principal Director of Income Tas (Investigation) N.E.R Unit-2(1) having its office at Room No. 401 Aayakar Bhawan G.S. Road Christian Basti Guwahati - 781005 8:Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Page No.# 3/11 Unit-2(1) Room No. 429 4th Floor Aayakar Bhawan Christian Basti G.S.Road Guwahati Assam Pin Code - 781005 9:Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Guwahati Room No - 501 Aayakar Bhawan G.S.Road Christian Basti Guwahati - 781005 10:Commissioner of Income Tas (Appeals) Central N.E.R Guwahati having its office at Room No. 624 Aayakar Bhawan G.S.Road Christian Basti Guwahati - 781005 11:State of Mizoram represented through Public Prosecutor Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram for R 11 Page No.# 4/11 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 23.03.2026 Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax for the respondent Nos. 2 to 10. 2. The petitioner has invoked Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in filing the instant writ petition praying for interference of this Court on the Order dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) whereby, the jurisdiction of the petitioner’s case has been transferred from ITO Ward-1, Silchar to DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati. The petitioner has also challenged the Order dated 26.03.2025 passed under Section 271DA of the IT Act, by which penalty of Rs. 2,88,03,970/- has been imposed on the Assessee. Additionally, the petitioner has also sought for quashing and setting aside the investigation proceedings including summons issued under Section 131 (1A) of the IT Act being carried out by the respondent No. 8 qua the petitioner. 3. At the outset, Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel submits that in so far as Order of Penalty dated 26.03.2025 is concerned, the petitioner would Page No.# 5/11 not pressing the same since an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 246A of the IT Act and the same is pending as on date. 4. The issue to be considered in the instant case therefore is as to whether the Order dated 25.02.2025 passed under Section 127(2) of the IT Act would be sustainable without the petitioner having been given the opportunity to be heard as alleged by the petitioner. 5. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel by referring to Section 127(2) (a) of the IT Act submits that the prior to transferring the case from one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer, there has to be an agreement between the Principal Commissioner or Commissioners to whom the Assessing Officers are sub-ordinate to and further, reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be given to the Assessee whenever it is possible to do so and only after that and by recording the reasons for doing so, an order can be passed transferring the case. He submits that from a perusal of the impugned Order dated 25.02.2025, it can be seen that the Order of Transfer was passed on the ground that no objection was received from the petitioner. Referring to the Communication dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure - 4), the learned counsel submits that a notice was issued, informing the petitioner about the proposal to pass an order under Section 127 of the IT Act for transferring of the case and for which, Page No.# 6/11 the petitioner was given five (5) days time from the date of receipt of the notice. However, the impugned Order came to be passed just the next day purportedly on the ground that there was a modification of the notice by which she was granted time up to 15:00 hours of 25.02.2025 to give her response. Under the circumstance, the learned counsel submits that the impugned Order of Transfer being in clear violation of the principles of natural justice as provided in the provision itself, the same may be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the case of Noorul Islam Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax I & Ors. reported in (2017) 12 SCC 805. 6. The learned counsel also submits that if the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had sent an e-mail agreeing to the transfer is to be accepted, the same should have been reflected in the Order dated 25.02.2025. However, it rather states that no objection was called from the petitioner but the same was not received from her till the date of passing of the Order. He submits that even on this ground, the impugned Order dated 25.02.2025 is not sustainable and should be set aside. 7. Mr. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax on the other hand submits that in so far as the challenge sought to be made to the Order of Penalty dated 26.03.2025 passed under Section 271DA of the IT Act, the Page No.# 7/11 petitioner has already availed the remedy available by filing an appeal under Section 246A of the IT Act, which is pending till date and therefore, parallel proceedings not being permissible as per the established principles of law, the writ petition in so far as the challenged sough to be made to the Order of Penalty should not be entertained and be rejected by this Court. In so far as the challenged made to the Order passed under Section 127(2) of the IT Act on 25.02.2025, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the authority concerned acted within his power to pass the order. He submits that the petitioner indeed was given an opportunity on the proposed transfer as can be seen from the letter dated 24.02.2025, which invited objection from the petitioner within a time frame. However, considering the fact that a Show Cause Notice had earlier been issued by the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Shillong on 11.02.2025 for compliance of DIN & Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1073634857(1), the notice issued on 24.01.2025 was amended to the effect that objection, if any, should reach the Issuing Authority by 15:00 hours of 25.02.2025. It was also indicated that personal appearance was not required and online submission of objection would be acceptable and considered. Accordingly, the e-mail i.d for giving a response to the communication was also provided. He submits that in response to the same, the petitioner vide a reply e-mail communicated that she has no objection for centralization of her PAN. Under the circumstance, the Page No.# 8/11 Order of Transfer dated 25.02.2025 is in order. He also submits that the Order of Transfer was passed as agreed to by the authorities concerned and the same has clearly been reflected in the order itself, which says that the order was passed as per the proposal received from PCIT (Central), Guwahati vide letter dated 05.02.2025. He therefore submits that the writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed. 8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 9. As already indicated herein above, the issue to be considered is as to whether the Order dated 25.02.2025 passed under Section 127(2) of the IT Act, can be sustained. The Order is an order by which the case has been transferred from ITO Ward-1, Silchar to DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati. The impugned Order also mentions that the Order is passed as per the proposal received from PCIT (Central), Guwahati vide letter dated 05.02.2025 and also as per the instructions received and the satisfaction arrived that centralization of the case at DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati is necessary for the purpose of coordinated investigation and to examine all the interlinking evidences gathered in the case. The impugned Order further states that vide Letters dated 24.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 objections, if any, was called from the Assessee i.e., the petitioner Page No.# 9/11 but there was no response till the date of the Order and therefore, it was presumed that the Assessee has no objection to the proposed transfer. Accordingly, the Order was issued and which came into force with immediate effect. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 10 however shows that a reply or response was made by the petitioner via e-mail wherein, she had written that she has no objection for centralization of her PAN. The date of the e-mail is 25.02.2025 and timing is 05.46 pm. 10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as per the instructions received from his client, she is not aware about the e-mail that was sent as projected by the respondents and moreover, even if the mail was sent as alleged, the same ought to have been reflected in the Order of Transfer. The Order of Transfer otherwise states that no response was received from the Assessee/the petitioner. On this issue, one may take note of the fact that the proceeding before this Court is a writ proceeding wherein, the disputes are decided on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties concerned unlike the civil court wherein, evidences are adduced, oral and documentary. Therefore, if a dispute is raised as regards the correctness or otherwise of the e-mail that has been sent, the same would mean that there are disputed questions of fact and for which, the jurisdiction of a writ court would be ousted on this ground. However, this Court is of the considered view that one need not go to that Page No.# 10/11 extent for the simple reason that the impugned Order had been passed on 25.02.2025 and pursuant to which, an Order of Penalty had also been passed on 26.03.2025 under Section 271DA of the IT Act. The petitioner on the other hand has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition only on 21.08.2025. In other words, if the petitioner was truly aggrieved with the impugned Order dated 25.02.2025 and disagreed with the fact of having given consent to the transfer of the case, the petitioner ought to have availed of the remedy available in law without waste of time. In so far as the Order of Penalty is concerned, it is not in dispute that an appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the Appellate forum. It can be seen that the petitioner has been prompt to seek recourse to the remedy available unlike the late response to the Order passed for transfer of the case. 11. The case of Noorul Islam Educational Trust (supra), has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein, the Supreme Court has held that an agreement is a must for transfer of case. In the present case, it may be noticed that order has been passed as per the proposal received from the PCIT (Central), Guwahati and therefore, it can be understood that there was a mutual consensus between the PCIT, Shillong and the PCIT (Central), Guwahati for transferring the case from one Assessee Officer to the other. Page No.# 11/11 12. Thus, upon due consideration of the case projected by the petitioner, this Court does not find merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 13. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant