9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer of jurisdiction from Kolkata to New Delhi. Held that- new case made out in order. Proposal for transfer on ground mentioned in order absent. Order passed perfunctorily as evident from use of word ‘etc”. impugned order on transfer quashed. - 1171 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2009 - Soumitra Pal, J. REPRESENTED BY: S/Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate, Dipak Dey and Ms. N. Banerjee, Advocates, for the Petitioner. S/Shri R.N. Mitra, Sr. Advocate with R.N. Sinha, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The Court: In the writ petition, M/s. Dhoot Developers Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has challenged the proposal dated 27th October, 2009 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Technical-2, Kolk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company that the principal place of business is at Kolkata. Since inception the petitioner has multiple business activities in the said city and all the shareholders are situated at Kolkata. Therefore, there is no case for transferring the records from Kolkata to New Delhi. 5. Mr. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the statements in the writ petition has submitted that as evident from the order dated 6th November, 2009 the Department has abandoned its case as mentioned in the letter dated 27th October, 2009 inviting the views of the petitioner regarding transfer of jurisdiction from Kolkata to New Delhi and a new case has been made out as seen from the order under challenge. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se were not considered and dealt with in the order impugned. That the objection was disposed of and order was passed perfunctorily is evident from the word "etc" appearing in the second paragraph of the order under challenge. 9. Therefore, for the reasons as indicated, the order dated 6th November, 2009 passed under section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II, respondent no.1 cannot be sustained and is, thus, set aside and quashed. 10. As prayed for by the respondent, this order shall not prevent the Revenue to move afresh after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner to present its case. 11. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. No order as to costs. 12. All parties concerned are to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
