9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a cryptic manner under paragraphs 3 and 4 of such order impugned. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of such order are quoted as follows: "3. The assessee asked for adjourrunent till the second week of January 2002, to furnish reply stating that its senior consultant was out of Kolkata. Since the proposed transfer was linked with completion of time-bound block assessment proceedings, the assessee was informed vide this office of even No. 765, dated December 13, 2001, that it was no longer possible to give such a long adjournment. The assessee was asked to furnish its reply by December 26, 2001, failing which it was made clear that the issue shall be decided on merits considering its earlier replies. Vide its letter dated December 26, 2001, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... X, in his office at 54, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-16, on December 14, 2001 at 10.30 a.m. personally or through an authorised representative to state your further objections to the proposed transfer of income-tax jurisdiction from the Income-tax Officer, Ward-55 (1), Kolkata, to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-XII, New Delhi, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. If you are unable to appear, you may send your reply in writing which should reach his office within the date and time mentioned as aforesaid. In case of non-appearance or non-filing of any reply, it will be assumed that you have no objection to the proposed transfer and order to that effect may be passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ko ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing has to be given in accordance with law and a reasoned order has to be passed by the authority concerned. The reason in passing the order that the earlier reply will suffice the material part, will not serve the purpose of giving opportunity of hearing and for passing a reasoned order. Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has cited several judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts which have been dealt with hereunder. Firstly, he cited in Ajantha Industries v. CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281. A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court held thereunder that non-communication of the reasons in the order passed under section 127(1) was a serious infirmity and the order is invalid. This has been followed by a subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier order was a preliminary order but the present order is the final order which according to Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is contrary to law. According to him, there is no question of passing a preliminary order and final order of transfer. In any event, in paragraph 3 of the order impugned it was categorically specified that the assessee was asked to furnish its reply on December 26, 2001, failing which it was made clear that the issue should be decided on merits considering its earlier reply. Therefore, as and when the reply was accepted on December 26, 2001, there was no occasion for the authority concerned to give any hearing and to pass an order without considering at length. The petitioners herein are not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
