SANWARMAL AGRAWALA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has arisen and directed against an order dated 23.10.92 passed by the Commissioner, Income tax, North Eastern Region, Shillong (Respondent No. 1) transferring the cases of the 11 assessees under the Income- tax Act from the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (INV) Circle, Dibrugarh and ITO, Ward-I, Tinsukia to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-2, Jaipur in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section 2 of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

(2.) The writ petition is presented by Shri Sanwarmal Agarwala, one of the assessees whose case was also transferred alongwith 10 other assessees. The Petitioner was assessed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Tinsukia. He was served with a notice dated 13.5.92 under the signature of the Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth, North Eastern Region, Shillong proposing to transfer the jurisdiction of his case U/S 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961/8B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 to the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (INV) Circle, Dibrugarh. The Petitioner did not respond to the said notice nor did he receive any intimation from the Income Tax authority on the above notice. Another show cause notice was issued by the Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner proposing to transfer the jurisdiction of the case of the Petitioner U/S 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961/8B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 from the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle, Dibrugarh to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-2, Jaipur (Rajasthan) for administrative convenience. According to the Petitioner he was out of station for medical treatment and the said fact was intimated by way of a petition dated 7.10.92 by the Advocate of the Petitioner praying, for adjournment of hearing and for refixation of the case. It was also contended by the Petitioner that since no reasons for transfer was shown as administrative convenience, the said show cause notice was vague and too general in nature and therefore he could not make any effective representation with reference to the reasons set out in the show cause notice. The Respondent No.1 thereafter by order dated 23.10.92 transferred the case of the Petitioner from the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Inv. Circle, Dibrugarh (Assam) to Dy. Comtmissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Jaipur (Rajasthan). The Petitioner stated that all the ten other assessees were the members of his family. The legality and validity of the order dated 23.10.92 was assailed in this proceeding as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The Respondent submitted its affidavit denying and disputing the writ petition and further assailed the maintainability of the writ petition. The Respondent stated that the writ Petitioner was the Managing Director and Chairman of M/s. P.V.P. Ltd., Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur. A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 29.4.92 and 30.4.92 in the residential and business premises of Sri S.M. Agarwala. The relevant search papers including appraisal report were forwarded by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Jaipur to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Tinsukia. Since the jurisdiction over the case of Shri S.M, Agarwala was held by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Tinsukia. Consequent upon the search being conducted in his case in Jaipur, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Tinsukia ceased jurisdiction over the Petitioner as per notification No.3 of 1992/93 dated 8.4.92. The territorial jurisdiction over the search and seizure cases was held by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation) Circle, Dibrugarh as per the said Notification. In that view of the matter, the issue of notice of transfer dated 13.5.92 became infructuous and therefore no order under Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed. As regards the second notice the Respondent admitted that in respect of the petition dated 7.10.92 submitted by the advocate of the Petitioner Shri P.L. Haritwal who sought adjournment of the hearing on medical ground for furnishing of medical certificate in support of the assertions made therein. The reason for transfer of the case was duly recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide Note Sheet No. 18 and 19 of File No. A-3/90-91/B&S/TIN/Pt-II before passing the order of transfer. The Commissioner of Income Tax considered the written statement made by the respective parties in reply to the show cause notice of hearing U/S 1127 issued to them. The Commissioner of Income Tax recorded the following reasons: