TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following relief: "(a) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the relevant records, to quash the impugned order No. 17/2004-05 dated June 18, 2004, passed by respondent No. 1 under section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act. (b) issue, a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to give effect to the impugned order dated June 18, 2004, and in pursuance thereof no record of the company be transferred from Kanpur to Mumbai. (c) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of ad interim mandamus staying the operation and effect of the impugned order dated June 18, 2004 during the pendency of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been annexed as annexure No. 1 to the present writ petition. The order dated June 18, 2004, is under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax while transferring the cases had nor given any reasons not has dealt with the various objections raised by the petitioners. We have heard Sri Sant Sharan Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Act, the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner have been empowered to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers to any other Assessing Officer where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and the reasons have also to be recorded before passing the order. In the present case, we find that the assessing authorities of the present petitioners are situated at Kanpur, whereas the assessment cases have been transferred to the Assessing Officer situated at Mumbai. Thus they are not subordinate to the same Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Director General and, therefore, not only opportunity of hearing was required to be given but also reasons ought to have been recorded before transferring the cases. Even though opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioners we find that in the order no reasons have been recorded. The order dated June 18, 2004, is reproduced below: "Government of India Office of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orwarded to: 1. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-I, Mumbai. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-I, Mumbai. 4. The Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Kanpur, Mumbai. 5. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) I and II, Kanpur. 6. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (Central Range-2), Mumbai. 7. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (Range-4), Mumbai. 8. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CC-VIII, Mumbai. 9. The Income-tax Officer (Judl/Tech/Sp R), O/o CIT-I II, Kanpur. 10. The Record Keeper, O/o the Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Kanpur. 11. The concerned assessee. (Sd.)...... (A.P. Amar) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (HQ Admn. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers have not been dealt with in the transfer order. It may be mentioned here that learned standing counsel has sought to justify the transfer of cases on the basis of the guidelines given in Circular No. 225 dated September 20, 2001, where it has been stated that in search cases all the cases should be centralised. It is well-settled that the order has to be judged on the basis of the reasons given therein. It cannot be supplemented by means of an affidavit. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, the apex court has held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
