LAWS(CAL)-2009-3-111

ANAND KUMAR ARYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Decided On March 12, 2009
Anand Kumar Arya Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application was filed by Anand Kumar Arya and Sudarshan Kumar Arya, stated to be working as partners of M/s. Economic Transport Organization (in short 'ETO') a registered partnership firm, challenging an order dated January 19, 2007, passed under Section 127 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), by the Commissioner of Income -tax, Kolkata, XIII, Kolkata, respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE writ petition was moved on May 3, 2007, when an interim order was passed restraining the respondents from transferring the file. Subsequently, directions were issued for filing of affidavits. Affidavits have since been exchanged and are on record. It may be noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, on June 27, 2007, the interim order lapsed.

(3.) MR . Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, supporting the order dated January 19, 2007, has submitted that a search was conducted in one of the organisations in Mumbai. After search, in exercise of the powers conferred by the notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, regarding centralisation of search cases, appearing at page 31 of the affidavit -in -opposition, the files of the petitioners were transferred. By the said notification an exception has been carved out and since centralisation has been made in Central charge and respondent No. 1 was under an obligation, since no useful purpose would have been served by giving an opportunity of hearing, compliance with the formalities under Section 127 of the Act was dispensed with. The submission is since files have been transferred to Mumbai, the petitioners are at liberty to apply before the authorities at Mumbai for retransfer of the files from Mumbai to Kolkata. The submission has been made that since interim order lapsed and transfer has already been effected, no order may be passed. In this regard, reliance has been placed on paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in Trilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, CST reported in : [1970] 25 STC 289 (SC) : AIR 1970 SC 898 in support of his submissions.