9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. R. Toprani for the petitioner. A. S. Rao with P. S. Sahadevan for respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by F. I. REBELLO, J.- The petitioner received a letter dated 8th November, 2006 from the Respondent No.1 that his assessment has to be centralised with the Respondent No.3. The petitioner was informed that under the provisions of Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act an opportunity was being given to give their say as to whether they have any objection to the proposed transfer. The petitioner replied to the same. Accordingly an order was made for transfer of the case. An application was made styling it as a Review of the order dated 14th March, 2007. A petition came to be filed before this Court be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... An order thereafter came to be passed on 4th October, 2007 under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 transferring the case from Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai to the Assessing Officer set out thereunder. It was set out that the order would take effect from 4th October, 2007. This petition came to be filed on 27th November, 2007. 3. At the hearing of the petition it was the contention of the petitioners that the transferring of the petitioner's case from respondent No.2 to Respondent No.3 with effect from 4th October, 2007 is unjustified. The respondents filed their reply of one R. N. Iyer. It is pointed out that the petitioner has a distillery at Baheri U.P.. That search and seizure actions were conducted under Section 132 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill January. The mere fact that the petitioners subsequently have resigned from membership of UPDA, therefore, by itself is no answer. The question is whether there was material in possession of the respondents based on which the proceedings could have been initiated for transfer. In our opinion there was sufficient material and after complying with the procedural requirements a speaking order has been made. The argument that the order is merely to give effect to a pre-planned decision cannot be sustained as subsequent to the order of this Court the petitioners were given an opportunity to meet the case based on which the respondents proposed to transfer the case. 6. In our opinion on the facts and circumstances this would not be a fit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
