The necessity for centralization of cases for coordinated and effective investigation is a valid ground for transfer under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

( 1 ) THE abovenoted writ petitions arise from a common impugned order dated April 4, 2005 (annexure 5 in both the writ petitions), passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 127 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (called "the Act"), read with section 11, Wealth-tax Act and Section 7 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, transferring the cases of the petitioners from Kanpur to Delhi. A show-cause notice dated March 16, 2005, was given to the petitioner as required under Section 127 (1) of the Act/annexure 3 to the writ petition giving opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order under Section 127 (2) of the Act. The said notice was given in view of the search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act conducted on July 2, 2003, in the premises belonging to the firm and companies (referred to as shikhar Gutkha group) and their partners/directors while proposing to transfer the cases of the said assessee-petitioner "for the purposes of co-ordinated and effective investigation" from kanpur to Delhi. The petitioner, Virendra Kumar Jain, submitted reply dated April 1, 2005, requesting the authority to inform him the material and evidence on the basis of which it had come to the conclusion that the assessee had connections with the Shikhar Gutkha group. According to the petitioner, the said information was sought in this regard earlier also.

( 2 ) IN the case of M/s. Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar (W. P. No. 756 of 2005), show cause notice under Section 127 (1) of the Act contained similar averments as in the case of Virender Kumar jain (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 755 of 2005 ). In response to the said notice, the assessee in question (Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar) submitted reply dated August 20, 2004/annexure 2 to the writ petition. In this reply also it was stated "we may submit that we have no connection with the Shikhar Gutkha group except with the fact that one of the partners Shri Pradeep Kumar agrawal is a director therein. You have not assigned any reason in the notice under reference, the manner in which our firm has been found to be connected with the Shikhar Gutkha group. Our concern is a small partnership firm, entirely different entity from the company M/s. Trimurti fragrances P. Ltd. , manufacturer of Shikhar brand gutkha. . . . "

( 3 ) IT was further mentioned in the reply that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, had initiated action against two partners of the said firm who had filed writ petition before the High court wherein proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-I, New Delhi, were got stayed.

( 4 ) OVERRULING the aforesaid objections, the Commissioner of Income-tax, passed the impugned order of transfer dated April 4, 2005/annexure 5 to the writ petition. For convenience paras. 4, 5 and 6 the impugned order are reproduced below : the assessees have mainly objected to the said transfer on the ground that they have no connection with the Shikhar Gutkha group. In the reply dated April 1, 2005, the assessees have requested for furnishing of the material and evidence on the basis of which it was claimed in the notice dated March 16, 2005, that the said cases are connected with Shikhar Gutkha group. It was explained to the asses-sees representative during the course of hearing on April 1, 2005, that as far as the case of M/s. Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar is concerned, Shri Pradeep Kumar agarwal is a partner in M/s. Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar and he is also a director of M/s. Trimurti Fragrances P. Ltd. , which is manufacturing the Shikhar Gutka brand. Thus the connection of M/s. Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar with the Shikhar Gutka group is quite evident. It may, further, be mentioned here that in M/s. Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar, besides Shri pradeep Kumar, his brother, Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal and his mother, Smt. Shanti Devi agarwal, are also partners and in M/s. Trimurti Fragrances P. Ltd. , the entire shareholding of the company is controlled by the famil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document