TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income-tax, Meerut. From the record before us, it appears that on December 27, 1989, an order was passed whereby the cases of 15 assessees were transferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, from the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Circle-I, Muzaffarnagar, to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Circle, Meerut. This order was passed under section 127 of the Income-tax Act as well as under the relevant provisions of the Wealth-tax Act and the Gift-tax Act. It is mentioned in this order that an authorisation under section 132 had been issued for search and seizure of the premises, both business and residential, of the assessees mentioned therein, and the officers, who were required to search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation, it was necessary to transfer the cases to Meerut. It was also noted that objection to the transfer had been raised on the ground that the Income-tax Officers at Meerut were prejudiced and biased. The Commissioner observed that no evidence had been produced in support of this objection. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no reasons had been given for the transfer of the case, and furthermore, the reason given is not sustainable in law. We are unable to agree with this contention. Admittedly, a show-cause notice was issued proposing to transfer the case and the reason for transfer was for proper investigation. The reply to the same was filed. The impugned order read as a whole clearly shows the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... co-ordinated investigation" was very vague and did not constitute a valid reason. We are unable to hold that a properly co-ordinated investigation cannot be a ground for the income-tax authorities to direct that all the cases belonging to a group should be decided by a single assessing authority. In the present case, as it appears from the impugned order, the business activities of the petitioner are located at Muzaffarnagar and, therefore, though the petitioner was assessed previously at Delhi, it was considered necessary to transfer the case to Meerut where the other cases of the assessees belonging to the same group were also being transferred by another order dated December 27, 1989. It was also contended, that the provisions of sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
