Petitioner is an individual and a partner of the partnership firm M/s. Olive Builders engaged in the business of development and construction of buildings.It is stated that he is an assessee assessed to income tax under the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. It appears that asearchand seizure operation was carried out in the premises of Ae Builders on 16.05.2019 at Kochi where the partnership firm is engaged in the business of development and construction of buildings. an order dated 09.08.2019 was passed by respondent No.1 - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-28, Mumbai under subsection (2) of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly ‘the Act’ hereinafter) transferring thecaseof the petitioner from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-28(2), Mumbai to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Kochi for administrative convenience and co-ordinated investigation as the territorial jurisdiction of thecasewas with the assessing officer. Thereafter respondent No.1 passed an order dated 09.12.2019 stated to be in modification of the earlier order dated 09.08.2019 passed under Section 127 of the Act. The two assessees namely, Olive Builders and Sarakutty Mathai have filed writ petitions held that there was no agreement between the competent / designated authorities leading to transfer of jurisdiction as per requirement of clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 127 of the Act. That apart, reasons were not disclosed. From the above, it is quite evident that before passing the impugned order on 09.08.2019, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Hearing was granted after the said decision was taken culminating in the second order dated 09.12.2019. That apart, from the second order it is discernible that there was no agreement between the two jurisdictional Principal Commissioners to transfer assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Kochi. Evidently, the procedure prescribed under Section 127(2)(a) of the Act has not been complied with.
In view of court that the decision making process leading to passing of the two impugned orders has been vitiated for non-compliance to the statutory procedural requirements. Consequently, both the orders dated 09.08.2019 and 09.12.2019 passed by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained; those are hereby set aside and quashed and all consequential actions shall also stand interfered with.