9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case; and (iv)award costs of this petition to the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : The petitioner is a Public Limited Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at 424, Fourth Floor City Centre, the Mall, Kanpur and factory at Shekhpur, Unnao. The entire business operation takes place from Kanpur. It is being assessed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) at Kanpur. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of country liquor and sprit. The Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05. A notice dated 10-11-2006 was served upon the petitioner under section 127(2)(a) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Kanpur-respondent No. 1 making reference to a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act conducted in the premises of M/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd., on 14-2-2006 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the case be not transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi for the purpose of coordinated inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in, he has relied upon the following decisions : 1.Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 397; 2.Ajantha Industries v. CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC); 3.P.K. Pehuja v. CBDT 1978 UPTC 384; 4.Vinay Kumar Jaiswal v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 568 (All.); 5.Canara Bank v. Debasis Das [2003] 4 SCC 557; 6.Bansal Sharevests Services Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 332 (All.); (1st case) 7.R.K. Agarwal v. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 5321 (All.). 6. Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner cannot insist upon the assessment being made at a particular place by a particular officer. If in order to check large scale evasion of tax, investigations and investments the authorities have come to the conclusion that the cases of a particular group of companies or a particular assessee is to be centralized at Delhi the petitioner cannot have any objection to it. In the present case, the petitioner has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard and the respondent No. 1 had recorded reasons for the transfer, which cannot be said to be illegal. He further submitted that respondent No. 1 had applied his own independent mind. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (2) of section 127 of the Act has been complied with in the present case. 8. In the case of Pannalal Binjraj (Supra), the Apex Court has held that the determination of the question whether a particular Income-tax Officer should assess the case of the assessee depends on (1) the convenience of the assessee as posited in sub-sections 4(1) and (2) of the Act and (2) the exigencies of tax collection and it would be open to the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Central Board of Revenue who are highest amongst the income-tax authorities under the Act to transfer the case of a particular assessee from the Income-tax Officer of the area within which he resides or carries on business to any other Income-tax Officer if the exigencies of tax collection warrant the same. It has further held that the infringement of such a right by the order of transfer under section 5(7A) of the Act is not a material infringement. It is only a deviation of a minor character from the general standard and does not necessarily involve a denial of equal rights for the simple reason that even after such transfer the case is dealt with under the normal procedure which is prescribed in the Act. The production a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. 13. In the case of Bansal Sharevests Services Ltd. (supra), this Court has held that where no reasons have been recorded and there is no other order on record passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the said order cannot be sustained and was therefore, set aside on the ground that the various objections raised by the petitioners have not been dealt with in the transfer order. 14. In the case of R.K. Agarwal (supra), this Court has held that no prejudice will be caused to the department is the precise reason is disclosed to show that the authority did apply his mind to the material on record or information available on the basis of search and seizure operations, giving a link to the fact that the assessee has some connection or association and by making a mention of the said fact in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the course of investigation reveals deposits of huge cash in bank account of the various assessees of this group. 16. This Court had come to the conclusion that the order impugned therein is neither arbitrary nor is based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations nor there is any manifest error apparent on the face of record and declined to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. In the case of Radico Khaitan Ltd. (supra) this Court after considering decisions of this Court in the case of Vinay Kumar Jaiswal (supra) and of the Apex Court in the cases of Pannalal Binjraj (supra), Ajantha Industries (supra) and Canara Bank (supra) has held as follows : 9. The extent of reasons which should find place in an order, in which reasons are required to be recorded, depends upon a variety of reasons such as the nature of the order, the extent and nature of the petitioner s rights which are effected thereby, the issues involved or the contentions raised or required to be considered, etc. There cannot be any rigid and/or absolute inflexible rule with regard to this. 14. Again, the extent of details to be mentioned in the show-cause notice necessarily ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on this issue. This Court cannot go into the sufficiency of the reasons. In the case of Trimurti Fragrances (P.) Ltd. (supra), this Court has held as follows : 22. In the instant case admittedly notice was given. The petitioner had submitted his reply taking the plea of inconvenience in particular and thereafter, the impugned order dated 22-2-2005/Annexure 3 to the writ petition has been passed wherein the concerned authority has specifically noted for co-ordinated investigation . We find nothing wrong with the said order inasmuch as the petitioner had reasonable opportunity to place his case. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to show any particular prejudice caused by transfer of the case in view of the attending facts and circumstances of the instant matter, wherein assessment is to take place with respect to a group of persons, common family members, business concerns having close interaction, and above all one of them resides at Delhi; one of the directors/partners himself, admits that heavy cash amount was recovered from his premises at Delhi belongs to his father at Kanpur and that out of 26 cases of the same group in question, 16 cases were assessed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
