TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same order of challenge on the very same grounds and as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions have been heard together for decision and disposal. Learned counsel for the parties also agreed for disposal of the writ petitions at the motion stage itself after advancing their elaborate arguments and on production of the records by learned standing counsel, Income-tax Department. Adverting to the facts of the case, the petitioners are individual partnership firms carrying on the business of supply of and trading in food grains. Their respective registered offices are situated in Guwahati. They are income-tax assessees. There are four partners each relating to their respective firms. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the partners of the petitioners partnership firms have their separate business interest/ventures in the form of sole proprietorship/partnership which are totally unconnected with the affairs and the business of the petitioners. On March 12, 2003, the Income-tax Department conducted a survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the business premises, and godowns of the petitioners. Various books of account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated November 6, 2003, is quoted below: "Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati-II, Saikia Commercial Complex, G.S. Road, Guwahati-5. Order under section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Date: Guwahati the November 6th, 2003. The under-mentioned cases were fixed for hearing on November 5, 2003, for giving an opportunity of being heard in connection with centralising and transfer of the assessment records from Guwahati to Kolkata for co-ordinating investigations since a search and seizure, was conducted against the Rathi group of cases on March 12, 2003, and survey under section 133A against the following assessees. In response to notices, Shri Ramesh Kumar Rathi, partner of Ramesh and Company, and Shri Brij Mohan Rathi, partner of Rathi and Company, appeared and submitted written submission for non-willingness for the proposed transfer. I have considered their submissions and find them of routine nature. I am unable to appreciate the assessee's view point and therefore reject the submission as for co-ordinated and effective investigation, the centralisation of the cases are necessary. In view of the above and in exercise of powers conferred by clause (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ati, to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata, under the provisions of section 127 of the Income-tax Act. There being no search and seizure against the petitioner unlike in the case of the other partners whose business is also totally unconnected with the business of the petitioners and the petitioners having their own entity, the impugned order dated November 6, 2003, could not have been passed and that too on vague and indefinite reason as indicated in the order itself, Dr. Saraf submitted. According to him, the ground specified for transfer of the cases is grossly arbitrary and unauthorised and if allowed to stand, would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners, more particularly in view of the fact that they have got no establishment/office in Kolkata or in any part of West Bengal. He also submitted that the petitioners were greatly prejudiced and handicapped towards filing effective objections in the absence of assignment of any specific reasons in the notice proposing transfer of the cases. According to him, the requirements as envisaged under section 127(2)(a) of the Act having not been complied with, the impugned order dated November 6, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner,-- (a) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... co-ordinated and effective investigation", according to learned counsel for the petitioner is vague and indefinite. It is in this context the aforesaid decisions have been pressed into service. It will be expedient and imperative to examine those cases. In the case of Saptagiri Enterprises [1991] 189 ITR 705, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the reason "to facilitate detailed and coordinated investigation" to be vague and too general in nature and not specific and based on material facts. It relied upon an earlier decision of the same court in interfering with the transfer of the case on the basis of the above mentioned reason. In the case of Vijayasanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 405, the same very High Court held that it is not sufficient merely to say in the notice that the transfer is proposed "to facilitate detailed and co-ordinated investigation". In the counter affidavits filed in both the cases, the income-tax authorities assigned some more reasons and the said High Court held that the petitioners therein having not been informed of the various reasons mentioned in the affidavits, the orders of transfer were invalid. In the second case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case. In the case of Maheshwari Lime Works [1984] 147 ITR 804 of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the transfer of the cases for the purpose of detailed and co-ordinated assessment was held to be justified. The said High Court found support from the decision of this court as reported in Assam Surgical Co. v. CBOT [1984] 145 ITR 400 (Gauhati). In the case of Madhav Sharan Agrawal [1996] 221 ITR 809, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, held the reasons for transfer of the cases "to centralise the cases of all the stock brokers" to be valid. In the case of Redwood Hotel (P.) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 191, a single judge of the Kerala High Court held that the assessee has no vested right to be assessed in a particular place. The order of transfer of the case of the assessee in respect of group cases, was held to be justified. Likewise in the case of Autofin Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 638 a single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the question whether the circumstances warrant transfer or not is a matter for consideration and the decision of the Commissioner. It was further held that the writ court would be reluctant to interfere in such mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d list of the assessees. The records also revealed that the search operations carried out in the "Rathi" group of cases led to the seizure of cash and other assets. The impugned decisions were arrived at for centralisation of the "Rathi" group of cases and this is precisely the reason as to why the impugned order was passed assigning the reason of necessity for centralisation of the cases for co-ordinated and effective investigation which cannot be said to be akin or similar to the reason assigned like "for detailed and co-ordinated investigation" or "for facility of investigation". The reason is discernible from the impugned order itself and it is not a case of not assigning any reason. If the centralisation of 36 cases involving the "Rathi" group, which include the petitioners as well, is necessary for co-ordinated and effective investigation, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal on the ground of being devoid of any reason. I may gainfully refer to the Division Bench judgment of this court as reported in Assam Surgical Co. v. CBDT [1984] 145 ITR 400. In that case also the petitioners questioned the validity of the order of transfer on more or less the very same gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antha Industries [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC) are totally absent in the instant cases. The competent authority on perusal of the entire records and after obtaining necessary information arrived at the conclusion that the entire group of cases numbering 36 including that of the petitioners are required to be centralised for effective and co-ordinated investigation. Such a finding arrived at cannot be faulted and the judgment, in the case of Assam Surgical Co. [1984] 145 ITR 400 rendered by the Division Bench of this court as noticed above fully supports the case of the respondents. Necessity of centralisation of cases for co-ordinated and effective investigation cannot be said to be an invalid ground for transferring the cases belonging to a particular group to a single Assessing Officer. It is a good ground for transferring the cases of the petitioners. The cases relied on by learned counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department fully support the case of the respondents as discussed above. Natural justice has been variously defined. It is another name for common sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified, but are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. It is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , appealing to commonsense and in conformity with the object and purpose for which the provisions of section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were incorporated. In the instant cases the petitioners were informed in writing about the proposal to transfer their cases under section 127 of the aforesaid Act from Guwahati to Kolkata asking them to submit their objections if any which they complied with without any reservation and asking for any further materials. It was on that basis the impugned order of transfer dated November 6, 2003, was passed. Cogent and sufficient reasons have been assigned in the order itself which find full support from the records as noticed above. Although the reasons for transfer have been briefly indicated at the bottom of the order to which reference was made by learned counsel for the petitioners to bring home his point of argument that the reasons assigned are vague and indefinite, one will have to read the entire order to test the reasonableness of the order itself. The order clearly reveals that the impugned course of action had to be adopted by way of transfer of the assessment records in question from Guwahati to Kolkata for co-ordinating investiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
