Back
1996 Supreme(All) 329
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju, B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Madhav Sharan Agrawal – Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Income-Tax And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition 59 of 1994
Decided on : Mar 20, 1996
Advocate appeared:
Rakesh Aggarwal,
The validity of a transfer order under the Income-tax Act, 1961 is upheld if preceded by a notice providing an opportunity of hearing and mentioning a valid reason for the transfer.
Headnote:
Transfer of Cases - Income-tax Act, 1961 - The court upheld the transfer of the petitioner's cases from one jurisdiction to another, citing centralization of stock broker cases as a valid reason for the transfer.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed against the transfer of the petitioner's cases from one jurisdiction to another under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order was valid as it was preceded by a notice providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and mentioned a valid reason for the transfer.
Issues: Opportunity of hearing, Validity of transfer order, Reason for transfer
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice providing an opportunity of hearing and mentioning the reason for transfer was sufficient to uphold the validity of the transfer order.
Final Decision: The petition was finally disposed of, with the court directing the transfer of cases to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur for the period when the petitioner was doing brokerage business, and assessment at Mathura for the period after the petitioner stopped doing brokerage business.
1. THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated December 8, 1993, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra, transferring the cases of the petitioner from the file of the Income-tax Officer, Mathura, to the Assistant Commissioner, Circle 3(4), Kanpur, under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. WE have heard Shri Rakesh Agarwal, for the petitioner, and learned standing counsel, for the Department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without giving reasons. We are not in agreement with this submission, since annexure-1 to the petition is a notice giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The notice itself mentions the reason of transfer, namely, that it is proposed to centralise the cases of all the stock brokers, which, in our opinion, is a good reason.
3. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has now stopped the business of brokerage. If that is so, we direct that up to the period when the petitioner was doing brokerage business, his cases stand transferred to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, but for the period after he stopped doing brokerage business, he will be assessed at Mathura.
4. WITH these observations, this petition is finally disposed of.
