JHARKHAND MUKTI MORCHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a political party duly registered with the Election Commission of India, having its head office at Bariatu Road, Ranchi, has filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated December 2, 1996, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ranchi, in exercise of the power under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by which he has transferred the case of the petitioner from the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Ranchi, the Assessing Officer, to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle IV, under the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi. By the same order the case of four other persons, namely, Suraj Mandal, President, Sibu Soren, Vice-President, Sailendra Mahto, Secretary, and Simon Morandi, a member of the petitioner, have also been transferred, a copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure "7" to the writ application.

(2.) THE petitioner is an assessee under the Act and was being assessed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Ranchi. THE case of the petitioner was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I, Ranchi. Sibu Soren, Suraj Mandal, Sailendra Mahto and Simon Morandi M.P. and Ex. M.P., are alleged to have taken bribes in crores of rupees from a political party for supporting it during the no confidence motion in Parliament. THE matter is being investigated by the C.B.I, and huge amounts deposited in the fixed deposit, savings bank account, Kisan Vikas Patra were found either in their names or in the names of their family members. Immovable properties were also found to have been purchased by them in Delhi. THE investigation of the case by the C.B.I, is being monitored by the Delhi High Court. All the papers including the papers seized from the office of the petitioner were also taken into possession by the C.B.I., Delhi, in connection with the investigation and charge-sheet has been submitted against them.

(3.) THE petitioner has assailed the order on the grounds of non-compliance with the requirement of Section 127 of the Act, unsustainable grounds for transfer, and non-communication of the order.