CBDT Directed to Act Against Officials for Re-Transfer of Case Ignoring Ongoing Proceedings | HC

Case Details: 52 Weeks Entertainment Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 - [2025] 173 taxmann.com 615 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
• Dharan Gandhi, for the Petitioner.
• Subir Kumar & Ashita Aggarwal, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, a company, filed a writ petition against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 127(2) transferring its case from Mumbai to Indore. The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim order staying the operation of the transfer order. On the subsequent date of hearing, the counsel for the revenue did not appear in the matter, and the ad-interim order was continued. The same happened in the future hearings of the matter.

Towards the conclusion of arguments, the counsel for the assessee pointed out that a fresh order under section 127(2) was passed by the PCIT, transferring the assessee’s proceedings from one Circle to the other in Mumbai. The counsel for the revenue claimed that this petition had not become infructuous, and the matter should be heard and decided whether the impugned transfer order was proper.

High Court Held

The Bombay High Court held that the counsel for the revenue and the revenue officials did not even bother to appear in this matter on most of the dates. Even the court was not apprised of the orders/approvals, and as a routine, the assessee continued to obtain an extension of the interim reliefs. All this suggests that the court proceedings were used or abused to compromise the Revenue’s interests.

The Court ordered the CBDT and the Ministry of Finance to take cognisance of this matter and its proceedings, make at least a preliminary enquiry as to the developments in this matter, and decide whether any action is necessary against the officials involved.