2006 Supreme(All) 391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Pradeep Kant, Narayan Shukla
SAHARA AIRLINES LTD - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INV.) NORTH - Respondents
Writ Petition 5393 Of 2005
Decided On : 02/08/2006
Anil Dewan, GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, PRADEEP AGGARWAL, RAKESH DWIVEDI, RISHI AGARWAL, Wasiquddin Ahmad
( 1 ) THIS is a bunch of writ petitions filed by different assessees belonging to Sahara Group, consisting of several Companies, Firms and individuals, challenging the order passed under Section 127 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, transferring the cases of Sahara Group from their respective assessing officers at Lucknow to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central circle-6, New Delhi.
( 2 ) THOUGH the orders in respect of all the assessees have been passed individually and separately, which have been challenged in the writ petitions filed by them, but since the ground of transfer and the questions of fact and law, which have been raised and require determination, are one and the same, we have proceeded to decide the petitions by one common order, with the consent of the parties counsel. The writ petition no. 5395 (MB) of 2005: M/s sahara Airlines Ltd. Vs. Director General of Income Tax (INV.) North, and others is being taken as the leading petition. The pleadings exchanged in one or more writ petitions shall form the basis of challenge and defence in all the writ petitions.
( 3 ) IN all there are 48 assessees, out of which, six are individual assessees at Lucknow and rest of the assesses are Company, Firm or individual. Out of these 48 assessees, 31 Companies including six individual assessees are assessed at Lucknow, two are assessed at Kolkata, nine at Mumbai, five at new Delhi and one at Pune. Twelve Companies and six individuals are being assessed at present by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central circle at Lucknow and rest of the assesses at Lucknow are being assessed by the respective assessing officers of their Circle.
( 4 ) THE notice under Section 127 (2) of the Act has been issued in all the cases and the date of notice is 20. 6. 05. The notice has been issued and served upon the petitioners saying that the Sahara Group consists of several companies, firms and individuals, which are presently assessed to tax at various places, including at Lucknow, Delhi and Kolkata. The Group has over a period of time diversified its business activities across cities and towns of the country. There is, however, an inter-lacing and inter-connection of funds and of business activities amongst the various entities of the Group. The Sahara Group had earlier filed an application before the Chief commissioner of Income Tax (Central) North, New Delhi for the transfer of cases being assessed in the Central Circle, Lucknow on the ground that the administrative/control offices of most of cases of this Group have shifted to delhi and that it is a fact that presently most of the offices of the group concerns including that of M/s Sahara Airlines Ltd. and of Sahara India (Firm) are located in Delhi and many of the companies are also assessed to tax at New Delhi and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), kanpur was of the opinion that for coordinated investigation and assessment, the cases of the Sahara Group should be centralized in New Delhi for which the assessee was being afforded an opportunity of being heard by attending the office personally or through authorised representative on a particular date.
( 5 ) THE petitioner submitted its reply to the aforesaid notice on 5. 7. 05 and again on 11. 7. 05. In the reply to the recital made in the notice, it was denied that most of the offices of the Group including that of Sahara Airlines limited and of Sahara India (Firm) are located in Delhi, for the reason that the registered office as well as command office of the assessee is situated at lucknow and it is only a branch office which is situated at New Delhi. Exception was also taken to the reliance being placed upon the application for transfer moved by the petitioner in the year 1996, which application, according to the petitioner could not have been taken into consideration as on transfer of the cases in pursuance of the aforesaid application of 1996 to New delhi vide order dated 9. 12. 96