IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7970 of 2011 Date of Decision: 05.05.2011 Lajpat Rai Jindal ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, A.C.J.(Oral) This petition seeks quashing of order dated 06.04.2011 under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') transferring the assessment of the petitioner from Sangrur to Patiala in the interest of revenue and co-ordinated investigation to be centralized with one Assessing Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been regularly assessed at Sangrur. After the search was conducted on his premises on 23.09.2010, a show cause notice dated 09.02.2011 was issued to the petitioner, proposing change of jurisdiction from the Income Tax Officer, Sangrur to ACIT, Patiala. The petitioner filed reply and after considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. According to the writ petitioner, transfer of assessment is illegal as no valid reason has been given. Centralization of assessment for co-ordinated investigation can in no circumstance be reason for such transfer. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of this CWP No. 7970 of 2011 [2] Court in Rajesh Mahajan and others V. Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 428 and Deep Malhotra and others V. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and others, CWP No. 17197 of 2008 decided on 4.8.2009. We are unable to accept the submissions. Power under Section 127 of the Act can be exercised on a valid reason to be recorded after due opportunity to the assessee. In the present case, show cause notice was issued and reasons were recorded. Once that has been done, in the absence of arbitrariness or malafides, the said order cannot be held to be illegal. There is no principle on which exercise of power on the ground that centralization assessment was required for coordinated investigation, particularly in case of a search can be excluded. In search cases, bonafide opinion for need for transfer to centralize the assessment to avoid conflicting orders, and for co-ordinate investigation can certainly be valid. The observations made in the judgment in Rajesh Mahajan by learned Single Judge are on the facts of that case and, in any case, cannot bind the Division Bench. The judgment in Deep Malhotra does not hold that co-ordinate investigation can never be a ground for transfer. Thus, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 05.05.2011 'ravinder'