(1.) BOTH these writ petitions are directed against the order, dt. 4th March, 1981, passed by the CBDT (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of s. 127 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), whereby the cases of the petitioners were transferred from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to the ITO, X Ward, Bombay.
(2.) SHRI Rishikul Vidyapeeth, Laxmangarh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1245/81, is an educational institution registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1959. SHRI Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram, Laxmangarh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1246/81, is said to be a part and parcel of SHRI Rishikul Vidyapeeth. Both the petitioners aforesaid were earlier being assessed for the purpose of income-tax by the ITO, Sikar. Subsequently, in the year 1979, the CIT, Jaipur, transferred the cases of the petitioners from the ITO, Sikar, to the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur. By notice, dt. 17th July, 1980, sent by the Board, the petitioners were informed that the Board proposed to transfer their cases from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to ITO, X Ward, Bombay, under s. 127 of the Act in order to facilitate detailed and co-ordinated investigation at Bombay in the light of certain financial transactions conducted there and because connected cases were being assessed by the 5th ITO, X-Ward, Bombay. By the notice aforesaid the petitioners were informed that if they had any objection to the aforesaid proposal they may appear before Avtar Singh, Member (Income-tax), of the Board, on 25th Aug., 1980, and that in case they did not wish to appear personally they may state their objections in writing so as to reach the Board by 25th Aug., 1980. In response to the said notice the petitioners submitted their objections dt. 16th Aug., 1980. Thereafter, the impugned order, dt. 4th March, 1981, was passed by the Board whereby the cases of the petitioners were transferred from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to the ITO, X-Ward, Bombay. In the said order it is stated that the transfer is effected to facilitate the coordinated investigation along with other connected cases. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of transfer, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions wherein they have prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to quash the notice, dt. 17th July, 1980, and the order dt. 4th March, 1981, and to restrain respondent No. 3, namely, the ITO, X- Ward, Bombay, from proceeding with the cases of the petitioners in pursuance of the order of transfer, dt. 4th March, 1981.
(3.) A perusal of the objections dt. 16th Aug., 1980, submitted by the petitioners, shows that in the said objections the petitioners have adverted to the fact that the activities of the petitioners are confined to District Sikar, in Rajasthan and that the petitioners have no place of activity at Bombay and that if their cases are transferred the petitioners would suffer great inconvenience and hardship. In the said objections the petitioners have, however, not made any submission in reply to the reason disclosed in the notice dt. 17th July, 1980, for the proposed transfer of their cases, viz., to facilitate detailed and co-ordinated investigation at Bombay in the light of certain financial transactions conducted there and that the connected cases are assessed by the 5th ITO, X Ward, Bombay. In their objections dt. 16th Aug., 1980, the petitioners have, on the other hand, admitted that Rishikul Vidyapeeth collects donations from businessmen at Bombay. Thus, we find that in the objections that were filed by the petitioners there was nothing to controvert the reason for transfer which was disclosed in the notice dt. 17th July, 1980. In passing the impugned order, the Board could, therefore, proceed on the basis that the petitioners had nothing to say against the reason which had been disclosed in the notice dt. 17th July, 1980. In our opinion the fact that in the impugned order the Board has not given any reasons for rejecting the submissions contained in the objections dt. 16th Aug., 1980, filed by the petitioners, is of no consequence inasmuch as the said submissions do not deal with the reason that had been disclosed in the notice dt. 17th July, 1980, for the proposed transfer. In the matter of transfer of a case under s. 127 of the Act the convenience of the assessee cannot override the need of the Revenue for a better investigation of the case. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Singhvi that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that it does not show that the objections submitted by the petitioners against the proposed transfer of case were not considered by the Board. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar, (supra), which related to the cancellation of a licence of dealership under the U.P. Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1962, as well as in North Bihar Agency vs. State of Bihar (supra), which related to the cancellation of a drug licence, have no application to the present case. Similarly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. vs. Company Law Board (supra), has no application to the present case. No other contention was urged by Singhvi. We, therefore, find no merit in these writ petitions and they are, accordingly, dismissed summarily.