9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfer the case of the petitioner from the ITO, District V(1), Survey Ward, Calcutta, to the ITO, Dist. III(18), New Delhi, and the reason for the purported transfer was stated to be facility of " Co-ordinated Investigation". The petitioner was asked if he had any objection to the proposed transfer, to appear for being heard or state his objections in writing. The petitioner sent a reply dated November 5, 1978 (annexure " B " to the writ petition), objecting to the proposed transfer, since the entire business of the petitioner was being done in Calcutta and they did not have any connection whatsoever in Delhi. It was also stated in the written objection that if the case was transferred to Delhi, it would create unnecessary difficulties and harassment to the assessee as well as to the Department in getting the assessment completed in Delhi, since the entire records would have to be brought to Delhi and taxes to be paid in Delhi while the business would be carried on in Calcutta. The petitioner's representative also appeared before respondents Nos. 1 and/or 3 on November 6, 1978, and orally placed the objections to the proposed transfer. Thereafter, on or about March 7, 1979, the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er subordinate to him to another also subordinate to him, and the Board may similarly transfer any case from one Income-tax Officer to another : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from one Incometax Officer to another whose offices are situated in the same city, locality or place." Mr. Bajoria, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order of transfer is invalid as the alleged reason for the transfer, i.e., " in the interest of proper investigation " is no reason at all and is a mere conclusion and that no particulars as to the alleged investigation or investigations having been furnished to show how the transfer was necessary, it was not possible for the petitioner to make effective representation against the proposed transfer in reply to the show-cause notice. The respondents proceeded in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of s. 127 of the I.T. Act. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the following observation of the Supreme Court in Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [1976] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other hand, Mr. Moitra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice shows that the petitioner understood the reason for the proposed transfer of his case from Calcutta to New Delhi, viz , the facility of co-ordinated investigation, and that the reason recorded in the order of transfer and communicated to the petitioner that the transfer was effected in the interest of proper investigation is sufficient for the appropriate court to know why the transfer was made, in case it is challenged by the assessee. Mr. Moitra has submitted that in Ajantha Industries' case [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC), the reason given in the notice proposing to transfer the cases of the petitioners was " facility of investigation " and nothing more. He has relied on the following three decisions of different High Courts in support of his submissions that the Board has duly complied with the requirements under s. 127 of the Act in the instant case and that there is no substance in the writ petition. The first decision is Sri Rishikul Vidyapith v. Union of India [1982] 136 ITR 139 (Raj). In that case, the reason given in the show-cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransfer than in the present case. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the instant case to be presently discussed, find that the writ petition cannot succeed. The reason for the proposed transfer of the petitioner's case from Calcutta to New Delhi for facility of coordinated investigation was, in my view, sufficient to enable the assessee to make effective representation against the proposed transfer and in fact the petitioner made such a representation both in writing and verbally through a representative before the Board. The petitioner understood the reason for the proposed transfer. In the reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner did not raise the plea that in the absense of particulars and details of the alleged investigation as to the nature thereof and how the transfer of the petitioner's case would facilitate the investigations, it was not possible for the petitioner to deal with the matter. Such plea taken in paragraph 7 of the writ petition appears to be an afterthought. In the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice (annexure 'B' to the writ petition), it was stated, inter alia, that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
