9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax, Delhi III, with the concurrence of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut. From the record before us, it appears that on December 27, 1989, an order was passed whereby the cases of 15 assessees were transferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, from the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Circle-I, Muzaffarnagar, to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Circle, Meerut. This order was passed under section 127 of the Income-tax Act as well as under the relevant provisions of the Wealth-tax Act and the Gift-tax Act. It is mentioned in this order that an authorisation under section 132 had been issued for search and seizure of the premises, both business and residential, of the assessees mentioned ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar. It was, therefore, concluded that for proper investigation, it was necessary to transfer the cases to Meerut. It was also noted that objection to the transfer had been raised on the ground that the Income-tax Officers at Meerut were prejudiced and biased. The Commissioner observed that no evidence had been produced in support of this objection. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no reasons had been given for the transfer of the case, and furthermore, the reason given is not sustainable in law. We are unable to agree with this contention. Admittedly, a show-cause notice was issued proposing to transfer the case and the reason for transfer was for proper investigation. The reply to the same was filed. The impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that transferring a case for "detailed and co-ordinated investigation" was very vague and did not constitute a valid reason. We are unable to hold that a properly co-ordinated investigation cannot be a ground for the income-tax authorities to direct that all the cases belonging to a group should be decided by a single assessing authority. In the present case, as it appears from the impugned order, the business activities of the petitioner are located at Muzaffarnagar and, therefore, though the petitioner was assessed previously at Delhi, it was considered necessary to transfer the case to Meerut where the other cases of the assessees belonging to the same group were also being transferred by another order dated December 27, 1989. It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases have been transferred from Muzaffarnagar to Meerut. Merely because the case of the petitioner has been transferred from Delhi to Meerut cannot show that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi 111, has acted for mala fide reasons, specially in view of the fact that the business activities of the petitioner are being carried on at Muzaffarnagar, where apparently the other business activities of the 15 assessees mentioned in the order dated December 27, 1989, are also being carried on which itself shows that it was in the public interest that all the assessments of the various assessees in the group should be conducted by the same assessing authority.
We find no infirmity in the impugned order. Dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
