TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annexed as annexure "7" to the writ application. The petitioner is an assessee under the Act an was being assessed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Ranchi. The case of the petitioner was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I, Ranchi. Sibu Soren, Suraj Mandal, Sailendra Mahto and Simon Morandi M.P. and Ex. M.P., are alleged to have taken bribes in crores of rupees from a political party for supporting it during the no confidence motion in Parliament. The matter is being investigated by the C.B.I. and huge amounts deposited in the fixed deposit, savings bank account, Kisan Vikas Patra were found either in their names or in the names of their family members. Immovable properties were also found to have been purchased by them in Delhi. The investigation of the case by the C.B.I. is being monitored by the Delhi High Court. All the papers including the papers seized from the office of the petitioner were also taken into possession by the C.B.I., Delhi, in connection with the investigation and charge-sheet has been submitted against them. The aforesaid office bearers and members of the petitioner were examined under section 131 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplementary counter-affidavit and have justified the order on the grounds mentioned in the order itself. It has been asserted by them that the transfer has been made after complying with the requirement of section 127(2)(a) of the Act inasmuch as that there was an agreement between the Commissioner of Ranchi and the Commissioner of Delhi before transfer of the case. It has also been asserted that the Board has also approved the transfer of the cases and the impugned order has been communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the following grounds : (i) The transfer order has been passed without there being an agreement between the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ranchi, and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, as such the requirement of section 127(2)(a) of the Act has not been complied with. Transfer by the Board in exercise of the power under section 127(2)(b) of the Act is not valid as it can exercise the power only when the provision of section 127(2)(a) is resorted to and there is disagreement between the concerned Commissioners. (ii) The ground given for transfer of the case, i.e., co-ordinated investigation, is not a suf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 5(7A) of the Act is made by the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Central Board of Revenue, as the case may be, and notice is given to the party affected and he is afforded a reasonable opportunity of representing his views on the question and the reasons of the order are reduced however briefly to writing. It is significant that when any question arises under section 64 as to the place of assessment and is determined by the Commissioner or Commissioners or by the Central Board of Revenue, as the case may be, the assessee is given an opportunity under section 64(3) of representing his views before any such question is determined. If an opportunity is given to the assessee in such case, it is all the more surprising to find that, when an order of transfer under section 5(7A) is made transferring the case of the assessee from one Income-tax Officer to another irrespective of the area or locality where he resides or carries on business, he should not be given such an opportunity. There is no presumption against the bona fides or the honesty of an assessee and normally the income-tax authorities would not be justified in refusing to an assessee a reasonable opportunity of repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be an agreement between the concerned Commissioners for the transfer of the case. Thus, it is clear that for a transfer of a case from jurisdiction of one Commissioner to other, the requirement is that there should be an agreement between the two Commissioners. The assertion of the petitioner is that the transfer has been made without there being any agreement between the two Commissioners. The respondents have asserted that there was an agreement and have also filed a document which has been annexed as annexure "H" to the supplementary counter affidavit. The said document is dated November 27, 1996, written by the Asst. Director of Income-tax (Investigation) Tech. IV, New Delhi, to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-I, 5th floor, Mayur Bhavan, New Delhi. The relevant portion of the letter is as follows : " It has been decided that the cases of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Party and its 4 MPs, namely, Shri Suraj Mandal, Shri Shibu Soren, Shri Simon Morandi and Shri Shailendra Mahto, will be centralised under your charge after being transferred from the charge of the CIT, Ranchi. Your concurrence for centralisation has also been obtained, and you were kind enough to identify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the power is to be guided and controlled to serve the purpose of the Act. The power is not to be exercised on arbitrary or flimsy grounds nor the same should be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. If the transfer is being made for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation for the purpose of assessment and collection of tax in a more convenient or efficient way, then it will be a good ground for transfer. The case of V. K. Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 403 (AP), is not an authority for the proposition as canvassed by counsel for the petitioner. From the facts of the aforesaid case, it appears that the order of transfer was interfered with by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the ground that the reason for transfer was not communicated to the assessee. Similarly, in the case of Anil Mittal [1997] 225 ITR 282 (P H), no reason was assigned in the order of transfer. In the case of S. A. Ahluwalia [1996] 220 ITR 523 (Gauhati), the order of transfer was interfered with on the ground that no case was pending against the assessee on the date of the order of transfer and the order of transfer was passed by an authority which was not competent to pass the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation in investigation in the affairs of the groups which may have a bearing on the income-tax proceedings. The word "co-ordinate" indicates that there is a need for inter-linking various aspects of a group for proper income-tax assessment. Hence, this expression is not vague. In fact, in the income-tax cases of connected business groups or families, it is often convenient to centralise their cases because often these have a bearing on one another. There is, therefore, nothing unreasonable in the impugned order." Apart from the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, the Gauhati High Court in the case of Assam Surgical Co. v. CBDT [1984] 145 ITR 400, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Rishikut Vidyapeeth v. Union of India [1982] 136 ITR 139 and the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dwarka Prosad Agarwalla v. Director of Inspection [1982] 137 ITR 456 have held that facility of investigation or co-ordinated investigation is a substantial ground for transfer from one officer to another officer. As noticed above the very object of transfer is to achieve the object of the Act. If co-ordinated investigation is necessary for the purpose of proper assessment, prevention of evasion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and efficient completion of assessment, launching of prosecution cases, collection of revenue, public interest and in the interest of administration of the Act, I, Commissioner of Income-tax, Ranchi, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Income-tax Act 1961, and all other powers enabling me in this behalf hereby transfer the case particulars of which are mentioned in columns (2), (3) and (4) of the following schedule from the Assessing Officer mentioned in column (5) to the Assessing Officer mentioned in column (6) thereof. " The aforesaid grounds in my view, in the facts of this case, are good grounds for transfer of the case and the order cannot be held to be invalid as canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has stated in paragraph 23 of the writ application that the respondent-Commissioner, Ranchi, has failed to communicate the impugned order to the petitioner. The said statement is not supported by an affidavit and it is only a submission. It has been stated in clear terms in the counter-affidavit that the order has been communicated to the petitioner and the impugned order contained in annexure-7 also shows that it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
