MAHESHWARI LIME WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI B. L. Nema for the petitioners and SHRI J. P. Sanghi for the Commissioner of income-tax heard on admission.

(2.) IN these two petitions, the petitioners, M/s. Maheshwari Lime works, Katni, and M/s. Shri Venkatesh Trading Co., Katni, have challenged the transfer of their assessment cases from the file of ITO, 'A' Ward, Katni, to the file of ITO, Special INvestigation Circle-II, Jabalpur, by the impugned order dated July 25, 1983, by the Commissioner under Section 127 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Notices were issued to the petitioners by the Commissioner for transfer of their cases on June 25, 1983, for the purpose of detailed and co-ordinated assessment. They were directed to submit their written objection on or before July 14, 1983, and also to appear before him in person or through a representative duly authorised in this behalf for a personal hearing. The petitioners submitted their written objections on July 13, 1983, contending : (1) this will entail lot of expenditure to the assessees for travelling from Katni to Jabalpur and back for attending the office of the ITO, Special INvestigation Circle-II, Jabalpur, (2) the cases are on the file of a very senior and experienced ITO and the same should not be transferred to a junior officer, and (3) there is no valid ground for transfer on the ground of detailed and co-ordinated investigation. It appears that nobody appeared before the Commissioner on July 14, 1983, and he, therefore, passed the impugned order stating that centralisation of these cases at Jabalpur is necessary to have a thorough scrutiny and detailed investigation before completion of the assessment; however, in order that the assessees are not put to inconvenience, the ITO, Special INvestigation Circle-II, Jabalpur, is directed to take up these cases as far as possible at Katni. By these petitions the petitioners further contend that they did appear personally before the Commissioner on July 14, 1983, but since he was not available they were not given any hearing and this fact was brought to his notice by filing an application on that day. This is denied on an affidavit filled on behalf of the Commissioner. According to the respondent, nobody appeared and the Commissioner was present in his office and has attended official work on that day ; the application was, in fact, moved on the next day on July 15, 1983, and not on July 14, 1983. The fact that the application was filed on July 15, 1983, and not on July 14, 1983, was conceded by the petitioner. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention that the petitioners were not given any personal hearing before the impugned orders were passed. Even otherwise we find that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by not giving them a personal hearing. They had submitted their written objections which have been duly considered by the Commissioner. Except the grounds mentioned in their written objection, no fresh ground has been urged before us in these petitions.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.