2006 (2) TMI 97 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer of case - we find that there has been sufficient compliance with principles of natural justice and the impugned order of transfer cannot be said to be arbitrary or devoid of any rationale Or in any way based on irrelevant considerations. It is to be noted that there is no case of the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer suffers from bias or mala fides - impugned order of transfer under section 127, suffers from no manifest error warranting interference by this court, therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. further, we clarify that the time taken from the date till the decision of the aforesaid writ petition be excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer of the case from Kanpur to Delhi under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Adequacy of reasons provided for the transfer.
4. Consideration of the convenience of the assessee.
5. Allegations of bias or mala fides in the transfer order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Transfer:
The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Kanpur, issued a notice under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act for the centralization of the petitioner's case from Kanpur to New Delhi. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the transfer was arbitrary and lacked sufficient reasoning. The court noted that the transfer was for "co-ordinated investigation" due to the interrelated transactions among the group of assessees, which included the petitioner. The court upheld the transfer, stating that it was neither arbitrary nor based on irrelevant considerations, and was necessary for an efficient and proper investigation.

2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the transfer order was a "laconic non-speaking order" and that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court found that the petitioner was given notice and had submitted a reply, thus satisfying the requirement of natural justice. The court emphasized that the petitioner had a reasonable opportunity to present their case and that the principles of natural justice were duly followed.

3. Adequacy of Reasons Provided for the Transfer:
The petitioner contended that the transfer order did not provide adequate reasons, merely stating "co-ordinated investigation" as the rationale. The court referred to several precedents, including Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India, which highlighted that the reasons for transfer need not be detailed as long as the purpose of efficient tax collection and investigation is served. The court concluded that "co-ordinated investigation" was a sufficient reason given the interconnected nature of the business activities within the group.

4. Consideration of the Convenience of the Assessee:
The petitioner argued that the transfer to Delhi would cause significant inconvenience. The court acknowledged the inconvenience but stated that it was not a fundamental right for an assessee to be assessed in a particular locality. The court cited Pannalal Binjraj, noting that administrative exigencies and efficient tax collection can justify such transfers. The court also observed that the geographical distance between Kanpur and Delhi was not substantial enough to outweigh the need for a coordinated investigation.

5. Allegations of Bias or Mala Fides:
The petitioner did not explicitly allege bias or mala fides in the transfer order. The court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that the transfer was motivated by bias or ill intent. The court emphasized the presumption that public officials discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with the law, as stated in previous judgments such as A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkatachalam Potti.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no manifest error in the transfer order under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act. The court held that the transfer was justified for coordinated investigation, complied with principles of natural justice, and did not cause undue prejudice to the petitioner. The court also clarified that the time taken during the stay of assessment proceedings would be excluded for the purpose of calculating the limitation period.

← Previous Next →