The Madras High Court has upheld the income tax assessment transfer from Income Tax Officer, Theni, to the Deputy Commissioner of the Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle, Kochi for coordinated investigation.
The bench Justice Vivek Kumar Singh has observed that since a search action under Section 132/132A was carried out and for the purpose of the coordinated investigation, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, it was proposed to transfer the case to Central Circle – 2, Kochi. Since the order is “faceless,” the petitioner may appear at any location.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the order passed by the first respondent under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the order impugned was issued without assigning any reasons for transferring the assessment from the Income Tax Officer, Theni, to the Deputy Commissioner of the Income Tax, Central Circle, Kochi.
The petitioner submitted that the failure to provide reasons in the impugned order renders it arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the absence of any justifiable reasoning and considering that the assessment process is now “faceless,” the case could be assessed at Theni itself without the need for transferring it to Kochi.
The department contended that a search was conducted on the petitioner’s property located in the State of Kerala, during which Rs. 50 lakhs were seized from the petitioner and subsequently handed over to the Income Tax authorities.
The department relied on the CBDT Guidelines which mandates that any search conducted under Section 132/132A of the Income Tax Act must be assessed in the Central Circle. Since a search action under Section 132/132A was carried out and for the purpose of the coordinated investigation, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, it was proposed to transfer the case to Central Circle – 2, Kochi. Since the order is “faceless,” the petitioner may appear at any location.
The court, while dismissing the writ petition, held that the order does not warrant interference.
Case Details
Case Title: A.Uthayakumar Versus PCIT
Case No.: W.P.(MD)No.5563 of 2025 and WM (MD) Nos.4057 , 4059 & 4060 of 2025
Date: 03.03.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Ramsundar Vijayraj
Counsel For Respondent: N.Dilip Kumar
