Facts of the Case
- The
petitions were filed by charitable trusts, individuals (including Sonia
Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra), and Aam Aadmi Party.
- Petitioners
were originally assessed under the Faceless Assessment Scheme.
- During
pending assessments, jurisdiction was transferred to Central Circle
(Delhi) under Section 127.
- The
stated reason:
“Better coordination, effective investigation and meaningful
assessment…”
- Petitioners
challenged:
- Transfer
order dated 08.01.2021
- Subsequent
notices under Section 142(1)
Issues Involved
- Whether
transfer to Central Circle under Section 127 requires prior approval of
CBDT.
- Whether
transfer violates the Faceless Assessment Scheme.
- Whether
such transfer is permissible without search or seizure proceedings.
- Whether
“guilt by association” can justify transfer.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Faceless
Assessment is a statutory right, ensuring:
- No
human interface
- Automated
allocation
- Transfer
to Central Circle defeats the purpose of faceless regime.
- No CBDT
prior approval, making transfer invalid.
- CBDT
guidelines restrict Central Circle transfers mainly to search/survey
cases.
- No
nexus with alleged Sanjay Bhandari group cases.
- Transfer
based on association is impermissible (“no guilt by relationship”).
- Notifications
have statutory force and override administrative circulars.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Power
under Section 127 is wide and independent.
- Transfer
justified for:
- Coordinated
investigation
- Effective
assessment
- Faceless
scheme does not eliminate statutory powers of transfer.
- Central
Circle jurisdiction is not limited to search cases.
- Reliance
placed on precedent:
- Kashiram
Aggarwalla vs Union of India
Court’s Findings / Reasoning
- Section
127 grants broad discretionary power to transfer cases.
- Central
Circle jurisdiction is not restricted to search cases.
- Notifications
(2019 & 2020) do not curtail Section 127 powers.
- No
absolute right exists for faceless assessment.
- Transfer
for coordinated investigation is legally permissible.
- However:
- “No
guilt by association” principle acknowledged
- But
in present case, transfer justified for investigation purposes
- Requirement
of CBDT approval:
- Not
mandatory in the manner argued by petitioners
- Two-step
transfer argument rejected as untenable
Court Order / Decision
- Writ
petitions dismissed
- Transfer
orders under Section 127 upheld
- Proceedings
before Central Circle allowed to continue
Important Clarifications
- Faceless
assessment is not an absolute right.
- Section
127 power remains intact despite faceless regime.
- Transfer
can be made for administrative efficiency & investigation.
- Central
Circle jurisdiction is not confined to search cases only.
- CBDT
approval is not always mandatory in the interpreted manner.
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/MMH26052023CW35352021_124210.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment