9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a common judgment. We have heard Shri V. K. Upadhyay and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal for the Department. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated April 29, 1994, under section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a true copy of which is annexure-10 to the writ petition, by which the Commissioner of Income-tax has transfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the objection to the proposed transfer, hence, merely because they had not been given notice by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the impugned order of transfer would not be vitiated. We do not agree with this submission of learned standing counsel. In our opinion, a notice has to be given under section 127 whenever it is proposed to transfer the case from one officer to another and this notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Act because as already stated above, unless the assessees know the reasons for the proposed transfer, they will not be able to properly meet the basis for the proposed transfer. Moreover, it may also be pointed out that the averments made in the objection dated March 30, 1994, have not been dealt with in the impugned transfer order and for this reason also the said order is vitiated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners have alleged in paragraphs 11 and 13 to the writ petition that the transfer order has not been communicated to them. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries v. CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281 that non-communication of the transfer order is a serious infirmity and hence the order was invalid. The same view was also taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
