TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e they should have furnished the same. - mere family connection cannot be a ground for transfer – order of transfer set aside and quashed. - 200 and 201 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2009 - SOUMITRA PAL J. J. P. Khaitan with Ms. A. Banerjee for the petitioner. P. K. Bhowmik with P. Dhudhoria for the respondent. JUDGMENT SOUMITRA PAL J.- The court : Let affidavits of service filed in court today be kept with the records. 2. Since the orders impugned and issues involved are common, the two writ petitions have been heard analogously. However, for the sake of convenience I shall deal with the facts in W. P. No. 200 of 2009 (Dilip Kumar Agarwal). 3. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the order dated Febr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2007] 290 ITR 316 (Cal) in support of his submission. 5. Mr. Bhowmik, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, supporting the impugned action submitted that since it is all in the family and transfer is for co-ordinated investigation, the order is just and proper. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgments in Virender Kurnar Jain v. CIT reported in [2006] 283 ITR 541 (All) and in Bal Chand Purohit v. CIT reported in [2006] 286 ITR 423 (Cal). 6. In order to decide the issue it is necessary to refer to the notice dated January 15, 2009, proposing transfer issued by the Income-tax Officer (Technical), Kolkata-XV, respondent No. 2, the relevant portion of which is as under: "....In connection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I am a permanent resident of Howrah. (4) That I have one and only business at Kolkata since last 16 years. Doing my business by the firm name of M/s. Bhagwati Steels of which I am the proprietor having its office at 18/1, M.D. Road, Kolkata. My firm is registered with various authorities at Kolkata, e.g., VAT authorities, shop and establishments authorities, etc. I am enclosing herewith copy of trade licence, VAT registration certificate, shop and establishment registration certificate, etc., which shows my permanent business establishment at Kolkata. (5) That I have never carded on any business at any place in the State of Bihar. (6) That I am the only person to look after my business. (7) That I am the only person to look after my ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. After the written reply was furnished, in accordance with the provisions contained in section 127 of the Act, the petitioners were heard and the reasoned order was passed directing transfer of the files from Calcutta to Patna. The relevant portion of the reasoned order, which is under challenge, is as under: "...Shri Dilip Kumar Agarwal filed his objection against the proposed centralization mainly on the ground that though he is a son of Shri Ratan Lal Agarwal, he has no connection with his father, he lives separately at Howrah and runs his business in Kolkata and his children are students of schools at Kolkata and Howrah and also due to his ill-health. Shri Krishna Kumar Agarwal also filed his objection. He stated that he has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, I consider their objection on this point also as devoid of any merit. The objection of the two assessees are to be weighed against the interest of the Revenue. In this group cash worth Rs.1.59 crores have been seized and the assessee disclosed Rs.1.25 crores. The case of this magnitude needs to be investigated by the Central Circle at Patna who have expertise to deal with such cases. The need for centralization is imperative for impartial assessment of the case. The two main assessees, viz, Ratan Lal Agarwal and Pawan Kumar Agarwal have no objection to the proposed centralization. The objection of Sri Dilip Kumar Agarwal and Sri Krishna Kumar Agarwal are devoid of any merit as discussed above. The objection are rejected and the foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s has been put on the petitioners to produce material evidence that they are not connected with their father. Rather had the respondents any evidence in support of their case they should have furnished the same. As evident from the law laid down in R.K. Agarwal [2006] 283 ITR 532 (All) mere family connection cannot be a ground for transfer. Since, as discussed, the authority has been unable to rebut the categorical statements made in the written objections, the law laid down in the judgment in Virender Kumar Jain [2006] 283 ITR 541 (All) is not applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, as the order impugned does not disclose any nexus of the petitioners with Ratanlal Agarwal or the Ratanlal group of companies, the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
