9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are non-issuance of notice to the petitioner and non-furnishing of reasons for transferring the matter from Guwahati to New Delhi. Non-issuance of Notice: The petitioner was directed to furnish a true and correct return of income for the assessment year 2000-01 within 15 days after service of the notice. However, the petitioner was not intimated about the order transferring jurisdiction from Guwahati to New Delhi, which led to confusion and lack of communication. Non-furnishing of Reasons for Transfer: The order transferring jurisdiction from Guwahati to New Delhi did not provide any specific reasons for the transfer, stating only "administrative convenience and co-ordinating effective investigation." This lack of detailed reasons was contested by the petitioner as being in violation of Section 127(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Legal Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order was illegal and required interference as it did not comply with Section 127(1) of the Act. Reference was made to relevant case laws emphasizing the mandatory requirement of assigning detailed reasons for such transfers. Court's Decision: The High Court held in favor of the petitioner on both counts, citing the non-issuance of notice and the lack of detailed reasons for the transfer as grounds for setting aside the impugned order. The writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs, with a note that the respondents could proceed with the matter in accordance with the law if advised. Significant Legal Observations: The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of recording and communicating reasons for transfer orders, highlighting that vague reasons like "administrative convenience" are insufficient. It was noted that the requirement of assigning reasons is mandatory under the law to enable affected parties to challenge orders effectively.
|
