SHIBU SOREN VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
1999 P L D 555
[225 I T R 298]
[Patna High Court (India)]
Before Dharmpal Singh and N. N. Singh: JJ
SHIBU SOREN and 2 others
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and others
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases Nos.4141 to 4143 of 1996, decided on 20/12/1996.
Income-tax---
----Transfer of case---Transfer of assessment proceedings from Patna to Delhi--Assessees issued notice and given opportunity to be heard---All documents in custody of C.B.I. at Delhi ---Assessees having several Bank accounts at Delhi ---Assessees sitting or former M. Ps. ---Transfers will not inconvenience them---Reasons for transfers adequate---Transfers valid-- Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.127.
The petitioners filed writ petitions, questioning the orders transferring their cases from the Income-tax Officer at Ranchi to the Income- tax Officer at New Delhi as invalid, on the grounds that the principles of natural justice had been violated, that the reasons for the transfer were inadequate, that the petitioners would be put to great inconvenience and that the consent of the officers concerned had not been taken:
Held, dismissing the petitions, that the transfers were valid because:
(a) Notices to show cause had been issued, the petitioners had shown cause and the petitioners' submissions had been considered; and there was, therefore, no failure of natural justice;
(b) the reasons for the transfer included convenience and efficient assessment because the order in question indicated that ail the original and relevant documents were in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation at New Delhi, and the petitioners had several deposits in Banks at Delhi; .
(c) the consent of the authorities in question had been taken and, in any case, the petitioners were not competent in this regard to say whether the consent had been taken or not, because that matter was between the income- tax authorities;
(d) the petitioners were sitting Members of Parliament or former Members of Parliament and would not be put to inconvenience if they had to participate in assessment proceedings at New Delhi.
A. MoI T Ra and S.K. Datta for Petitioners.
Debi Prasad and K.K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondents.
JUDGMENT
These three writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of a common order.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel for the respondents.
In these writ petitions, the order, dated December 2, 1996, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ranchi, a copy of which is Annexure "3" to the writ petitions has been assailed and prayer has been made for quashing the order, under the provision of section 127 of the Income-tax Act, transferring the case relating to the assessment proceeding that was pending before an officer of the Income-tax Department at Ranchi to an officer at New Delhi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:
His first contention is that though notice to show-cause was issued (a copy of which is Annexure "1"), sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioners and so the order passed is legally unsustainable, because of being violative of the principle of natural justice.
The second contention is that the reasons given in the transfer order are inadequate or insufficient, and the convenience of the assessing authorities cannot be a good reason for transfer.
His further contention is that the petitioners have permanent residences at Ranchi and if they have to go to participate in the proceeding of assessment of income-tax going on the Delhi they will be put to much inconvenience.
His further submission is that before transferring such income-tax assessment proceeding, the consent of both the concerned officers, namely, the officer before whom the income-tax proceeding is pending and the officer to whom the proceeding is transferred had to be taken but, to his knowledge, such consent was not taken before passing the transfer order.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the notice was issued on the petitioners, that is indicated by Annexure " 1 " filed with the writ petitions and even show-cause was filed as would appear from Annexure "2". The further submission is that even the impugned order indicates that on behalf of the petitioners some Advocate had appeared and had cited some decision, and the impugned order indicates that the objections raised were considered and disposed of, giving reasons for overruling the objections which had been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. According to counsel for the respondent, several reasons have been given for the transfer, including the reason of coordinated and efficient investigation and assessment, which has been held by the Courts to be a valid reason for transfer under the provision of section 127 of the Income-tax Act.
On careful consideration of the contentions raised, we are inclined to accept the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondents and we do not find that any good ground has been made for admission of these writ petitions. There is no doubt that notice of show-cause was issued as indicated from Annexure " 1 ". Even show-cause had been filed as would appear tom Annexure "2". The impugned order indicates that one Sri Keshav Prasad, Advocate, had appeared on behalf of the petitioners and initially he sought adjournment and he was allowed time. He was allowed to make submissions, which have been considered in the impugned order. In view of all this, it is difficult to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the principle of natural justice was violated or that sufficient opportunity as not given to the petitioners. It also appears from the impugned order that it is not only for convenience of assessment of tax that the transfer had been made. The reasons that have been given for the transfer include convenient and efficient assessment as well as in the interest of collection of revenue, which is in the public interest. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows:
"In this case all the original and relevant documents are in the custody of the C.B.I. at New Delhi. Even those documents collected by the Income-tax Department at Ranchi, have been requisitioned and obtained by the C.B.I. documents like books of account and donation coupons which have important bearing on the case are in the possession of the C.B.I. Most of the immovable assets and huge bank deposits and also investments in K.V.P. are in Delhi. Further sources of money deposited in the bank by the former M.Ps. have also originated at Delhi. The warrants of search under section 132 in respect of deposits in the bank have been executed in Delhi. The C.B.I. has also filed charge-sheet against the four M.Ps. of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha in Delhi. Thus, in view of the above reasons and for more convenient and efficient completion of assessment, launching of prosecution cases, collection of revenue, public interest and in the interest of administration of the Act, I, Commissioner of Income-tax, Ranchi, in exercise of the powers conferred under subsection (1) of section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all other powers enabling me in this behalf hereby transfer the case particulars of which are mentioned in columns (2), (3) and (4) of the following schedule from the Assessing Officer mentioned in column (5) to the Assessing Officer mentioned in column (6) thereof."
As regards consent of the concerned assessment authorities, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that consent had been taken. The petitioner is not competent in this regard to say whether the consent had been taken or not, because that matter is between the income-tax authorities.
As regards the alleged inconvenience which is likely to be caused to the petitioners, we may mention here that we are not impressed by the submission because the petitioners are said to be sitting M.Ps. and former M.Ps. and are having several accounts at Delhi as is indicated from the order and had been residing there even as M.Ps. and ex-M.Ps. We do not think that if they have to participate in the assessment proceeding at Delhi they will be put to inconvenience.
So, in view of the reasons indicated above, we do not think that it is a fit case for admission and it is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission.
M.B.A./1716/FC Petition dismissed