9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. The appellants made their representation objecting to the transfer and on July 26, 1973, the Central Board passed the impugned order transferring the cases from Nellore to Hyderabad. There is no provision of appeal or revision under the Act against such orders of transfer. The appellants, therefore, preferred an application under article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning the validity of the order chiefly on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no reasons were given nor communicated in the said order. The learned single judge after having called for the relevant file found that certain reasons were recorded by the Central Board prior to the passing of the impugned order and held that mere failure to communicate the reasons to the appellants was not fatal to the order. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed. The appellants' Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court also met with the same fate. Hence, this appeal by special leave. The short question that arises for consideration is whether failure to record the reasons in the order which was communicated to the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers subordinate to him to any other Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers also subordinate to him and the Board may similarly transfer any case from any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers to any other Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers to any other Income-tax Officer or income-tax Officers and the offices of all such Income-tax Officers are situated in the same city, locality or place: Provided further that where any case has been transferred from any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers to two or more Income-tax Officers, the Income-tax Officers to whom the case is so transferred shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the case and shall perform such functions in relation to the said case as the Board or the Commissioner (or any Inspecting Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf) may, by general or special order in writing, specify, for the distribution a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst him, be it a transfer from one Income-tax Officer to another within the State or from an Income-tax Officer within the State to an Income-tax Officer without it, except of course where the very object of the transfer would be frustrated if notice was given to the party affected. If the reasons for making the order are reduced however briefly to writing it will also help the assessee in appreciating the circumstances which make it necessary or desirable for the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Central Board of Revenue, as the case may be, to transfer his case under section 5(7A) of the Act and it will also help the court in determining the bona fides of the order as passed if and when the same is challenged in court as mala fide or discriminatory. It is to be hoped that the income-tax authorities will observe the above procedure wherever feasible." This judgment was rendered by this court on December 21, 1956, and we find that in the 1961 Act section 127 replaced section 5(7A) where the legislature has introduced, inter alia, the requirement of recording reasons in making the order of transfer. It is manifest that once an order is passed transferring the case file of an ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing of the revision application must record its reasons and communicate these reasons to the parties affected thereby. It was further held that the reasons could not be gathered from the notings in the files of the Central Government. Recording of reasons and disclosure thereof is not a mere formality. Mr. Sharma drew our attention to a decision of this court in Kashiram Aggarwalla v. Union of India. It is submitted that this court took the view that orders under section 127(1) are held in that decision to be "purely administrative in nature" passed for consideration of convenience and no possible prejudice could be involved in the transfer. It was also held therein that under the proviso to section 127(1) it was not necessary to give the appellant an opportunity to be heard and there was consequently no need to record reasons for the transfer. This decision is not of any assistance to the revenue in the present case since that was a transfer from one Income-tax Officer to another Income-tax Officer in the same city, or, as stated in the judgment itself, "in the same locality" and the proviso to section 127(1), therefore, applied. When law requires reasons to be recorded in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
