RAJ KUMAR MANGLA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions, there are essentially two grievances raised by the petitioner who appeared before us in person. The first grievance is with regard to the order made under Section 127(2) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act), whereby the petitioner's case was transferred from the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income -tax (Investigation) Circle, Gurgaon to the Office of ITO, Ward No. 10(1), Delhi which falls under the administrative control of the Commissioner of Income -tax -VII, Delhi. The said transfer order was dated 14.10.1998 and was to take effect from 30.10.1998. The petitioner is aggrieved by this transfer order because, according to him, his application for rectification under Section 154 of the said Act, which was filed before the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), Faridabad, could not have been transferred under Section 127(2) of the said Act inasmuch as only the assessment proceedings could, in his view, be transferred under that provision.

(2.) THE second grievance of the petitioner is that the application moved by him under Section 154 of the said Act in respect of appeal Nos. 144, 145 and 146/95 -96 was disposed of by the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), New Delhi without giving him an opportunity of hearing. The said order disposing of the application under Section 154 was dated 26.04.2005. Incidentally, this was the third application under Section 154 of the said Act filed by the assessee / petitioner seeking rectification of the very same order. The first two applications under Section 154 were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), Faridabad. Thereafter, because the case stood transferred under Section 127(2) of the said Act, the third application of the petitioner under Section 154 was rejected by the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), New Delhi by virtue of the said order dated 26.04.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a fourth application under Section 154 requesting for rectification of the alleged mistakes in the impugned order dated 26.04.2005.

(3.) WITH regard to the second issue, we find that the petitioner has been filing repeated applications under Section 154 and that this practice is not to be encouraged. The petitioner has agreed that if he is given an opportunity of hearing in respect of his application under Section 154, which was dismissed on 26.04.2005, no further applications under Section 154 would be filed in respect of the very same order. He also undertook that the fourth application, which has purportedly been filed under Section 154 of the said Act, could also be deemed to have been withdrawn.