AUTOFIN LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings in S and P No. 31/72-73, dated October 20, 1972, of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and to quash the same.

(2.) THE first petitioner, M/s. Autofin Ltd., is a company registered under the Companies Act, and the second petitioner is the managing director of the said company. THE company is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, and the second petitioner is assessed in two capacities---as an individual, and also as karta of a Hindu undivided family. THE assessments of the company are pending from the year 1970-71. THE assessments of the Hindu undivided family are also pending from the said year (1970-71), whereas the assessments in the individual case are pending from 1972-73. THEse assessment proceedings are pending before the Income-tax Officer, "A" Ward, Company Circle, Hyderabad (2nd respondent). On September 30, 1972, the 2nd petitioner filed a petition before the 1st respondent alleging that the 2nd respondent was calling for information from him on phone and insisting that the same should be given to him then and there, that about two months prior to the filing of the said petition, the 2nd respondent wanted the Bin Cards of the spare parts of the company on phone and required the information to be furnished on the same day, though the 2nd petitioner stated that it was not possible to do so, that the 2nd respondent lost his temper and threatened that he would post the case every day and make the petitioner sit till the end of the day and that he would continue the procedure till the close of the financial year and that he would complete the case on the material available on record. THE 2nd petitioner stated that the 2nd respondent was using very harsh language, that he issued attachment notice to the company regarding his (2nd petitioner's) personal income-tax arrears, that even after the arrears were cleared off on August 11, 1972, he did not vacate the attachment, that he was bent upon teasing and harassing the 2nd petitioner and the company, and, therefore, the 2nd petitioner apprehended that he would be denied justice in the hands of the 2nd respondent, and prayed that the cases should be transferred from the file of the said Income-tax Officer.

(3.) SRI B.K. Seshu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the Commissioner did not deal with the petitioner's application for transfer, and that it is the Income-tax Officer (Headquarters) (S and P), Hyderabad, that communicated the order and the Commissioner failed to exercise the power vested in him under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended in 1967) (hereinafter called " the Act ").