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

1996 Supreme(P&H) 851

ASHOK BHAN, N.K.SODHI
Anil Mittal – Appellant
Versus
Chief Commissioner Of Income-tax – Respondent


Judgment

1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of mandamus/certiorari to quash the order dated January 16, 1996 (annexure P-19), passed under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the ground that it does not contain reasons for transferring the case of the assessee from Gurdaspur to New Delhi.

2. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajantha Industries v. CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281, where their Lordships, on interpretation of Section 127(1) of the Act, have held that reasons have to be recorded in the order while transferring the case of an assessee from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction, It was held as under (headnote) :

"The requirement of recording reasons under Section 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the transfer of a case from one Income-tax Officer to another, is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof to the assessee is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee. Recording of reasons and disclosure thereof are not a mer



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top