TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t search investigation and, therefore, notice under section 127 was issued. Thereafter, opportunity of hearing was granted, order for transfer was passed and, consequently, on December 8, 2006, files were transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax, Central Circle 19, New Delhi. 4. It is not in dispute that a notice for transfer of the case of the petitioner was issued. Thereafter, hearing was granted and the impugned order was passed. The first issue is whether the notice discloses sufficient reason for transfer and, secondly, whether the impugned order deals with the written objection filed by the petitioner. In order to address the issues, it is necessary to set out the notice dated November 14, 2006, proposing transfer which is as under : Dated : 14-11-2006 Sub. : Transfer of jurisdiction over your case to DCIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi. Sir, Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-III, New Delhi ; has pro posed centralization of your case with DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi, for conducting co-ordinated investigation in connection with the search undertaken against Radico Khaitan Ltd. and other associated cases on 14-02-2006. You are requested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. It is requested before your honour that to avoid all the afore said problems it should not be transferred from Kolkata to New Delhi and I also assure that in case of any papers required by the Assessing Officer, Central Circle-19, New Delhi, we will provide immediately and co-operate them in all respects. I pray before your honour not to transfer the file from Kolkata to New Delhi and oblige. . . . . 6. In this regard reference may be made to the letter dated November 30, 2006, filed on behalf of the petitioner which is extracted hereunder : Sir, We are submitting herewith the following facts/papers which is required by your goodself at the time of hearing on 23-11-2006. 1. No business activities are undertaken at 18, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Only the aforesaid office consisting with three people (including peon and typist) and hanns basically a co-ordinating office of factory. 2. The statement of accounts of the parties, for the transaction made in the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are enclosed. No transaction made in the year 2004-05. Hope your honour will be satisfied. . . . . 7. Thereafter, the impugned order dated Novemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. and in the interest of co ordinated investigation as proposed by the CIT (Central-III), New Delhi, it would be necessary to centralise the case with, the case of Radico Khaitan Ltd. and other associated companies at New Delhi. (emphasis supplied) 8. 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. Yet, on November 14, 2006, the petitioner filed the written objection. Thereafter, on November 30, 2006, statement of accounts was submitted. It appears from the order impugned that the petitioner had furnished necessary information and had clarified the issues raised by the Revenue. Since admittedly the petitioner had furnished written objection it is to be seen whether it was considered . The word consider me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
