9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are being done at Dhamtari and Raipur in the State of Chhattisgarh. A suggestion, in form of a letter dated 27.12.2011, was received by the Commissioner, Income Tax, Raipur from the Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad for centralisation of cases for post search and seizure operations for the co-ordinated investigation with the ACIT-Visakhapatnam. 4. Later, a show-cause notice was issued on 18.01.2012 to the Assessees asking them to show cause against the transfer. The Assessees filed their objections. 5. After considering the objections, initially, five cases were transferred on 02.04.2012. Thereafter, a further suggestion was received for re-considering nine other cases for centralisation for co-ordinated investigation. Another order was passed on 31.05.2012, centralising those cases as well. 6. The Assessees in the aforesaid cases, filed different writ petitions. These petitions were consolidated and were allowed by the single judge on 09.10.2012, basically on the ground that the word 'co-ordinated investigation' was vague and no opportunity can be said to have been given to the Assessees. Hence, the present writ appeals by Income Tax Department (the Department). POINTS FO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transfer, beyond a city could not be effected unless an opportunity was given and was for relevant considerations. This was required to be done to ensure fairness. The fact that there is a statutory provision, does not by itself, make the function to be a judicial. It is not conclusive of this fact. 14. The transfer order does not decide the rights of the parties in the assessment. The ultimate order deciding the right is the order of the assessment; it decides the basis and the tax to be paid: this order is a judicial order. The transfer order is merely for administrative reason and it cannot be said that nature of power is judicial. 15. In Kashiram Aggarwalla v. Union of India and others [1965] 56 ITR 14 (SC) (the Kashiram case), the transfer order was under 127(1) of the Act; unlike the present cases, where the transfer orders are under Section 127 (2) of the Act. The question involved was, whether the transfer order in that case was invalid as no reasons were recorded. 16. In the Kashiram case, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory requirement of recording reasons was not to be applicable, as the transfer orders were in the same city and only wards were changed but the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er explained neither vitiates the transfer orders nor can it be said that no notice was given. The reasons were indicated in the notice and the Assessees had opportunity to reply the same. 25. In our opinion, * It cannot be said that no reasons were communicated or order was without any opportunity; * The first two submissions have no merit. Let us consider if the words 'co-ordinated investigation' are vague or not. IIIrd and IVth Submissions: Coordinated Investigation-Not Vague 26. It is not disputed that the search took place in the premises of Mahamaya group of companies, as well as residential and official premises of its directors and its employees. It was at different places at Dhamtari, Visakhapatnam, and Kolkata: where incriminating documents were seized. 27. The documents are inter-connected and affect the assessment of the parties. It is necessary to see their effect together on the assessments. It can only be done after analysing and investigating the documents found at different places together and not separately at different places: a co-ordinated investigation is necessary. 28. The word 'co-ordinated' means harmonious in action. As documents have been seized a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transfer orders were set aside as either the reasons were not communicated, or they were not indicated or recorded. This is not a case here. In the cases before us, reasons have been indicated and communicated to the Assessees; * In RK Agrawal and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others [2006] 283 ITR 532 (All), the transfer order was set aside as the objection of the assessee was that he was not connected with the group involved there was not dealt. This is not a case here. Here, admittedly the Assessees are either Mahamaya Group of companies or their directors or their employees; there was also no such objection. 31. The Andhra Pradesh (AP) High Court and Madhya Pradesh (MP) High Court have taken a contrary view that the words 'co-ordinated investigation' are not vague. These cases are as follows: * The AP High Court in Vijayasanthi Investments (P) Ltd., v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Others reported in [1991] 187 ITR 405 (the Vijayasanthi case) and in Saptagiri Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others reported in [1991] 189 ITR 705 (AP) (the Saptagiri case); * The MP High Court in Sagarmal Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited v. Central B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r not to apply the Sagarmal case to the case in hand. 37. It will not be out of place to mention that the MP High Court has itself distinguished the Sagarmal case in Maheshwari Lime Works and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [1984] 147 ITR 804 (MP) (the Maheshwari case). Unfortunately, the MP High Court in the Shivjirao case and the AP High court in the Vijayasanthi case as well as the Saptagiri case, neither saw difference in facts of the cases and the Sagarmal case, nor noticed the Maheshwari case, where the MP High Court itself had distinguished the Sagarmal case. 38. In any case, the aforesaid four cases decided by the AP and MP High Courts are merely persuasive and are not binding on us. We prefer to be in the company of rest of the High courts as mentioned under heading "Cases holding 'co-ordinated investigation'-not vague" 39. In our opinion, * The facts of the Sagarmal case were different; its ratio cannot be made applicable in the present case; * The AP High Court and MP High Court in the Vijaysanthi, Saptagiri and Shivjirao cases applied the Sagaral case without considering the difference as well as the Maheshwari case that had distinguished the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case that is cited. Perhaps, such insistence-even if the decisions are inapplicable or irrelevant-is misplaced. It may not be proper to record in the judgement that a counsel has cited irrelevant, or inapplicable, or overruled, or already distinguished case. 49. We would just like to point out some observations by a prominent lawyer Shri Fali S Nariman in his book 'India's legal system: Can it be saved?' At page 144, he observes: 'We are overburdened with excessive case law and this is positively on the deficit side in our quest for the administration of speedy justice. In a case law-oriented system like ours, if law is to be meaningful and to be easily understood, judges must find more time to write more briefly, more precisely.' 50. In the book, Shri Nariman had also explained (at page 143-144) about place of Restatement of the law in the US and regretted that it was not applicable in our country. He writes, 'In the United States, these 'fact-cases' are likened to railroad-tickets: 'valid for single journey only'. The Americans are not greatly enamoured (as we or the British are) about precedent, and every ten or fifteen years they appoint a body of very learned and wise law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
