TMI Blog1981 (8) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishikul Vidyapeeth, Laxmangarh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1245/81, is an educational institution registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1959. Shri Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram, Laxmangarh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1246/81, is said to be a part and parcel of Shri Rishikul Vidyapeeth. Both the petitioners aforesaid were earlier being assessed for the purpose of income-tax by the ITO, Sikar. Subsequently, in the year 1979, the Commissioner of Incometax, Jaipur, transferred the cases of the petitioners from the ITO, Sikar, to the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur. By notice, dated July 17, 1980, sent by the Board, the petitioners were informed that the Board proposed to transfer their cases from the ITO, Trust C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have heard Shri G.S. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions. Before dealing with the contentions urged by Shri Singhvi, it would be convenient to set out the provisions contained in s. 127(1) of the Act which reads as under: 127. (1) The Commissioner 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, transfer any case from one or more of the following officers subordinate to him, namely: (a) any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers; (b) any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers having concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, to any other I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 980. In response to the said notice the petitioners had submitted their objections in writing dated August 16, 1980. It is thus clear that the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of making their submissions against the proposal for a transfer of their cases and they did make their submission against the aforesaid proposal. The submission of Shri Singhvi was that no opportunity of personal bearing was given to the petitioners, even though a request to that effect was made in the objections, dated August 16, 1980, submitted by them. We, however, find that in the notice dated July 17, 1980, the petitioners were informed that they could appear personally before Shri Avtar Singh, Member (Income-tax) of the Board on August 25, 1980. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the non-communication of the reasons in the order passed under sub-s. (1) of s. 127 of the Act was a serious infirmity in the order. In the said case, the Supreme Court has observed that the requirement of recording reasons under s. 127(1) of the Act is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof was not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee. In the said case, the Supreme Court has quoted the following observations from its earlier decision in Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India [1957]31 ITR 565 (SC), decided with reference to the provisions contained in s. 5(7A) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (p. 589): " It would be prudent if the principles of natural justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1302, North Bihar Agency v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1758; [1981] 3 SCC 131 and Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639; AIR 1967 SC 295. A perusal of the objections dated August 16, 1980, submitted by the petitioners, shows that in the said objections the petitioners have adverted to the fact that the activities of the petitioners are confined to District Sikar, in Rajasthan and that the petitioners have no place of activity It Bombay and that if their cases are transferred the petitioners would suffer great inconvenience and hardship. In the said objections the petitioners have, however, not made any submission in reply to the reason disclosed in the notice dated July 17, 1980, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jections submitted by the petitioners against the proposed transfer of case were not considered by the Board. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar, AIR 1970 SC 1302, which related to the cancellation of a licence of dealership under the U.P. Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1962, as well as in North Bihar Agency v. State of Bihar [1981] 3 SCC 131 ; AIR 1981 SC 1758, which related to the cancellation of a drug licence, have no application to the present case. Similarly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639; AIR 1967 SC 295 has no application to the present case. No other contention was urged by Shri Singhvi. We, therefore, find no merit in thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
