9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred the cases of the petitioners to the Assessing Officer at Meerut, namely, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Meerut. The impugned order, in its entirety, reads as under: "Office of the Commissioner of Income - tax Delhi-I, New Delhi F. No.: CIT-I/ITO Hq-I/Centralisation/08-09 7-10-2008 ORDER under section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), section 11 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, section 7 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, and other powers enabling me in this behalf, I, Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi hereby transfer the case, particulars of which are mentioned hereunder in Col. 2, from Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall come into force from October 13, 2008. (Sd.)…………… VIJAY SHARMA, Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi." 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on September 30, 2008 the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi had issued a letter with regard to the proposal for transferring the jurisdiction over the petitioners' cases to Meerut from Delhi. On October 6, 2008 the petitioners submitted detailed representations before the said Commissioner of Income-tax containing several objections to the proposal for transferring their cases to Meerut. On October 7, 2008 the petitioners also submitted a detailed representation before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (respondent No.1). The said representation also contained s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and co-ordinated investigation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before us a decision of this Court in the case of Nitin Developers and Const v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 605, wherein it has been observed that the order of transfer under section 127(2) ought to disclose proper application of mind to the objections which the assessee may have raised. The Court observed that this principle is fairly well-settled. In the present case, we find that the order does not disclose proper application of mind to the objections and obviously the order does not indicate as to how the objections raised by the petitioners have been met. 4. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order. It would be open to the Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
