2000 (3) TMI 46 - HC - Income Tax

Court grants relief on writ petition challenging transfer order under Income-tax Act, 1961.

The court allowed the writ petition challenging the transfer order under the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing the authority to provide the petitioners with ... Transfer Of Case Issues involved:Challenge to transfer order under Income-tax Act, 1961 without opportunity of hearing.Detailed Analysis:The petitioners challenged the transfer of their case from one Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax to another without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as required by section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They argued that the lack of hearing before the transfer violated principles of natural justice. Citing a previous case, they contended that the absence of grounds or reasons for the transfer in the show-cause notice rendered the proceedings invalid. The petitioners emphasized the convenience of being heard in Asansol, where the search and seizure took place, rather than in Calcutta. They accused the income-tax authority of causing a serious violation of justice by not providing an opportunity for hearing.The respondent, on the other hand, justified the transfer by pointing out the involvement of the petitioners in a bitumen scam, necessitating a block assessment under sections 158B onwards of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They argued that the situation fell under Chapter XIV-B, which did not require notice under section 127 for transfer. The respondent highlighted that a show-cause notice had been issued after the transfer, making it unnecessary to provide an opportunity for hearing before the transfer. They also mentioned that the petitioners had not been inactive, as evidenced by their letters requesting a hearing.The court analyzed the situation, emphasizing the importance of the power of superintendence under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a means to ensure justice and fairness in administrative actions. It noted that the convenience and inconvenience of the parties should be considered, and injustice should not be allowed in similar situations without clear legal provisions. The court stressed that the petitioners should be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before transfer, especially in cases where guilt had not been established. It highlighted that the convenience favored the petitioners being heard in Asansol rather than Calcutta, unless substantial grounds for transfer existed beyond the bitumen scam involvement.In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the appropriate authority to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within six weeks from the date of the order. It ordered a stay on the assessment proceedings until a reasoned order of transfer was passed. No costs were imposed, and the petitioners' advocate was permitted to communicate the order to the respondent for necessary action. Urgent certified copies of the order were to be provided to the advocates within two weeks of requisites submission.