SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(AP) 124

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Saptagiri Enterprises - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
Decided On : 03-20-91

The reasons for the transfer of an assessee's case under section 127 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be specific and intelligible, and the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to effectively show cause against the proposed transfer.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Transfer of case - Section 127 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Show-cause notice and final order of transfer - Reasons for transfer - Vague and omnibus ground - Not sufficient - Assessee entitled to know precise reasons for transfer - Order of transfer quashed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an assessee within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Ward-I, Chittoor, challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guntur, transferring its case to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle II (8), Madras, for detailed and co-ordinate investigation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the reasons for the transfer, as stated in the show-cause notice and the final order, were vague and omnibus, and did not provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to effectively show cause against the proposed transfer. The court further held that the requirement of a reasonable opportunity will be reduced to an idle formality if a vague and omnibus ground is given.

Issues: Whether the reasons for the transfer of an assessee's case under section 127 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be specific and intelligible.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [1976] 102 ITR 281, which held that recording of reasons and disclosure thereof are not mere idle formality. The court also relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vijayasanthi Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Chief CIT [1991] 187 ITR 405, which held that the reasons for the transfer must be specific and based on material facts.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guntur, dated 5/10/1990, with liberty to proceed with the transfer of the petitioner's case afresh according to law.

( 1 ) QUESTIONING the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guntur, under section 127 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the present writ petitioner has been filed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-firm is an assessee within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Ward-I, Chittoor. By the impugned order dated Oct 5/10/1990, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guntur, transferred the case of the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle II (8), Madras. It is stated in the order that "this transfer is effected to faciliate detailed and co-ordinate investigation. " The order was preceded by the issuance of a show-cause notice on 4/09/1990. In the notice, it is indicated that "the transfer of the case is to facilitate co-ordinated investigation and enquire/restore the case to territorial ITO/a. C". Obviously, the inapplicable portion - "restore the case to territorial ITO/a. C". has not been deleted. It is not the case of the Department either in the counter or otherwise that any question of restoration of the case to the territorial ITO/a. C. arises. The petitioner sent a reply dated 10/09/1990. The petitioner contended that it will be convenient if the file is retained at Chittoor where the firm is having its establishment. It was also stated that the petitioner was prepared to answer any question or furnished any information which the Assistant Commissioner (Income-tax), Madras, may require at any time. After considering this reply, the impugned order came to be passed on 5/10/1990.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the petitioner does not have any business or establishment at Madras, that except using a stock phraseology, no specific reason has been mentioned in the show-cause notice or in the final order. Counsel argues that this amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of this court in Vijayasanthi Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Chief CIT [1991] 187 ITR 405 to which one of us (P. Venkatarama Reddi J.) was a party.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, it is stated that the writ petitioner is closely connection with the Odayar Group whose assessments are being dealt with by the Assistant Commissioner of income-tax, Central Circle-II (8), Madras, and that there are certain transactions of the petitioner linked with the said group of assessees. Inasmuch as the Odayar Group of cases are being handled at Madras, it is essential to transfer the petitioner s file also to the concerned circle at Madras for the purpose of facilitating detailed and co-ordinate investigation. It is submitted that the notice and order of transfer cannot be said to be vitiated merely because "they do not disclose all the reasons that weighted with the first respondent in effecting the transfer". It is also contended that disclosure of the relevant reasons in the order of transfer would militate against the interest of the Revenue as there is every possibility of such a course stifling the enquiry that has to be made.

( 5 ) IT is agreed by both the counsel that the judgment of this court in Vijayasanthi Investments P. Ltd. v. Chief CIT [1991] 187 ITR 405 squarely applies to the case on hand. After referring to the decided cases on the subject, it was observed therein at page 411 : "from the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that, in the matter of the transfer of a case under section 127 of the Act, it is necessary that the authority which proposes to transfer the case must, wherever it is possible to do so, give the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard with a view to enable to him effectively show cause against the proposed transfer. The notice must also propose to give a personal hearing. It is also necessary to mention in the notice the reasons for the proposed transfer so that the assessee could make an effective representation with reference to the reasons set out. It is not sufficient merely to







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top