9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the validity of the order of transfer of the petitioner's file from Chennai to New Delhi under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the compliance with the principles of natural justice in the transfer process. Validity of Transfer Order: The petitioner, a registered partnership firm engaged in tea export, challenged the transfer of its file from Chennai to New Delhi by the first respondent under section 127 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice lacked reasons, the order was non-speaking, objections were not considered, and no opportunity was provided. The court held that the transferring authority must give a notice containing reasons, afford a hearing, pass a speaking order considering objections, and communicate the reasons for transfer, as per section 127(2) of the Act. Principles of Natural Justice: Citing legal precedents, including Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India and Ajantha Industries v. CBDT, the court emphasized the mandatory requirement of recording and communicating reasons for transfer under section 127(1) of the Act. Failure to do so violates natural justice principles. The court also referred to Vijayasanthi Investments P. Ltd. v. Chief CIT, highlighting the necessity of reasons in the show-cause notice, a personal hearing, passing orders with reasons, and communicating them to the assessee. Judgment: The court found that the show-cause notice in this case was silent on reasons, no hearing was provided, objections were not addressed, and reasons for overruling objections were not communicated. The respondents' reliance on reasons recorded in the file was deemed insufficient and a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order of transfer, emphasizing the importance of complying with section 127 requirements. The court left open the question of the transferring authority's competence to order the transfer between different circles. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and costs were not awarded. The respondents were given the opportunity to pass fresh orders in compliance with section 127 of the Act.
|
