Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (2) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3-2-2006 - Judge(s) : A. K. YOG., PRAKASH KRISHNA. JUDGMENT The above noted writ petitions arise from a common impugned order dated April 4, 2005, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his jurisdiction under section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (called "the Act"), read with section 11, Wealth-tax Act and section 7 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, transferring the cases of the petitioners from Kanpur to Delhi. A show-cause notice dated March 16, 2005, was given to the petitioner as required under section 127(1) of the Act/annexure 3 to the writ petition giving opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order under section 127(2) of the Act. The said notice was given in view of the search and seizure operation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... company M/s. Trimurti Fragrances P. Ltd., manufacturer of Shikhar brand gutkha ..." It was further mentioned in the reply that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, had initiated action against two partners of the said firm who had filed writ petition before the High Court wherein proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-I, New Delhi, were got stayed. Overruling the aforesaid objections, the Commissioner of Income-tax, passed the impugned order of transfer dated April 4, 2005/annexure 5 to the writ petition. For convenience paras. 4, 5 and 6 the impugned order are reproduced below: "The assessees have mainly objected to the said transfer on the ground that they have no connection with the Shikhar Gutkha group. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -305, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi, is owned by Karan Traders P. Ltd., in which Shri Murli Dhar Agarwal and Shri Prashan Agarwal are the directors. It may be mentioned here that Shri Murli Dhar Agarwal is the father of Sri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal and Shri Prashant Agarwal is his nephew. It is, further ascertained that Shri Virendra Kuamr Jain, who is the proprietor of M/s. Mahabir Grinding, is engaged in grinding of supari being used in gutkha manufactured by M/s. Trimurti Fragrances P. Ltd., and he is the main grinder of supari for the group. The said case is, therefore, also connected with the Shikhar Gutkha group. The objections raised by the said two assesses against the proposed transfer of their cases to New Delhi are, therefore, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o one of the directors of M/s. Trimurti Fragrances P. Ltd., to which belonged the product-the Shikhar Gutkha brand; the connection of M/s. Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar Agrawal with the Shikhar Gutkha group was quite evident from the fact that the partners of the firm-"M/s. Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar (viz., Vijay Kumar Agarwal brother, Pradeep Kumar Agarwal and their mother, Smt. Shanti Devi Agarwal) were in the management of M/s. Trimurti Fragrances P. Ltd., the entire shareholding family; as well as the control of these "units" vested in the members of one; it was, therefore, clear that M/s. Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar is an integral part of the Shikhar Gutkha group, the case of Shri Virendar Kumar Jain also had connection with the case of M/s. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion and given good reason which cannot be faulted. The contention of the petitioner that the Department should have furnished information with them (as claimed by them in their reply) is not at all sound as the Department cannot be compelled or required at the initial stage to disclose the "material" or "information" as it may "embarrass or prejudice" the assessment. The legal position is crystal clear and settled by a catena of the decisions of this court and the apex court on this issue. This court cannot go into the "sufficiency" of the reasons: There is no pleading that the impugned order of transfer is due to "bias" or "mala fide" or otherwise "arbitrary". The reasons indicated in the impugned order cannot be said to be irrelevant. Ref .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates