9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to legality of transfer order under section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.
The judgment delivered by Justice Pendse of the Bombay High Court addressed three petitions challenging the legality of an order transferring cases from the Income Tax Officer in Bombay to the Income Tax Officer in New Delhi. The impugned order was issued by the Under Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for proper investigation. The petitioners argued through their counsel that the Commissioner cannot exercise powers under section 127(1) without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which they were denied in this case. The respondents claimed that notices were served through the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-1, giving an opportunity of hearing, which the petitioners disputed by stating that they were not served any notices and had not authorized anyone to represent them. The court noted the absence of evidence of notices served or authorization for representation, leading to the conclusion that the petitioners were indeed denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside for the petitioners in all three petitions, with the option for the Central Board of Direct Taxes to issue fresh orders after proper notice. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, making the rule absolute in each petition without any order as to costs. This judgment primarily dealt with the interpretation and application of section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the transfer of cases between Income Tax Officers. The key issue revolved around whether the Commissioner had the authority to transfer cases without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioners contended that they were not served with any notices and were not given a chance to present their case before the transfer order was passed. On the other hand, the respondents argued that notices were indeed served through the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-1, providing an opportunity for hearing. The court carefully examined the arguments and evidence presented, ultimately siding with the petitioners due to the lack of proof of proper notice and authorization for representation. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in matters concerning administrative actions like case transfers under the Income Tax Act. The judgment highlighted the significance of adherence to procedural requirements, especially when exercising statutory powers like those under section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the Commissioner must provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before transferring cases between Income Tax Officers. In this case, the absence of evidence of proper notice and authorization to represent the petitioners led to the conclusion that their right to be heard was violated. By setting aside the impugned order and allowing for the possibility of fresh orders with proper notice, the court reaffirmed the principle of natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative actions. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding due process and respecting the rights of individuals affected by such decisions, even in matters of tax administration and investigation.
|
