Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2007 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (5) TMI 207 - HC - Income TaxOrder of transfer u/s 127 - notice for transfer served - transferring the case of the petitioners from the Asst. CIT, Kolkata to the Deputy CIT, New Delhi - HELD THAT:- It appears from the facts a notice for transfer was served for conducting "co-ordinated investigation in connection with the search undertaken against Radico Khaitan Limited and other associated cases." The notice, however, did not disclose the nature of investigation in connection with the search undertaken against Radico Khaitan Ltd. Since the notice did not disclose the nature of investigation and was bald, vague and general in nature, in such circumstances, in my view, it was not possible to file effective reply. Perusing the order impugned it appears purchase of liquor by the petitioner, during the financial year 2005-06 from Rampur Distillery an unit of Radico Khaitan Limited was the sole criterion that had prompted. Revenue to issue the impugned order of transfer which, in my view, was more or less was a repetition of the impugned notice dated November 14, 2006. 'There was no deliberation on the written objection and accounts filed which was not an idle or empty formality. The impugned order is silent in that regard. Mere business transaction, whatever be the volume, cannot be the criterion for transfer in these days of brisk trade and commerce. Simply stating in the order that the transfer is for "co-ordinated investigation" does not fulfil the requirements of section 127 as it neither deals with the evidence adduced nor contains reasons which are valid and specific. The principles of law laid down in the Sahara Airlines Ltd. v. Director General of Income-tax (Inv.) [2006 (2) TMI 128 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], relied on by the Revenue, are not applicable to the facts of the case as it appears from the facts of the said judgment that the reply of the petitioner was evasive. On the contrary in the case in hand, it is not even remotely argued on behalf of the Revenue that the petitioner had suppressed material facts or the reply was evasive. Therefore, in my view, the impugned notice and the impugned order of transfer cannot be sustained and, thus, are set aside and quashed. The writ petition, hence, is allowed.
|