1993 (6) TMI 54 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Opportunity of being personally heard.
2. Reasons for the proposed transfer in the show-cause notice.
3. Reasons for the transfer in the order of transfer.

Summary:

1. Opportunity of being personally heard:
The petitioners argued they were not given an opportunity of being personally heard before the disposal of their objections. The court found this objection without merit, noting that the notices u/s 127(1) issued on August 20, 1992, called upon the assessees to appear before the Chief Commissioner on September 7, 1992. The petitioners submitted their objections in writing but did not appear personally or through representatives on the specified date. Thus, the court concluded that adequate and reasonable opportunity was provided.

2. Reasons for the proposed transfer in the show-cause notice:
The petitioners contended that the show-cause notice did not provide reasons for the proposed transfer. The court examined the notices and found that merely stating "to facilitate proper investigation" does not suffice as a reason. The court referred to multiple precedents, including Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India and Ajantha Industries v. CBDT, emphasizing that reasons must be communicated to the assessee to enable them to make an effective representation. The court held that the show-cause notice failed to meet the requirements of section 127(1) as it did not provide specific reasons for the transfer.

3. Reasons for the transfer in the order of transfer:
The petitioners argued that the transfer order did not provide any reasons. The court noted that the order dated October 7, 1992, only mentioned "to facilitate proper co-ordinated investigation" as the reason, which is insufficient. The court highlighted that valid reasons like tax evasion or non-disclosure of income must be communicated. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India, which mandates that reasons must be recorded in writing and communicated to the affected party. The court found that the transfer order violated section 127(1) as it did not disclose any valid reason for the transfer.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the order dated October 7, 1992, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, u/s 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, transferring the cases of the petitioners from Mangalore to Bangalore. The court allowed the petitions and made the rule absolute, permitting the third respondent to initiate fresh action for transfer in accordance with the law. Any order passed pursuant to the transfer was declared void and not binding on the petitioners.