TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax Act, without giving any reasons whatsoever for transferring the case to further investigation from Goa to Delhi. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajantha Industries v. CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC). On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has relied on other judgments of Allahabad High Court, Jarkhand High Court and Bombay High Court in support of her submissions that it is permissible for authority to transfer a case from one place to another on the ground that co-ordination investigation is necessary. 4. We are of the view that the submissions made by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner will have to be accepted in view o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Sunanda Rani Jain v. Union of India, [1975] 99 ITR 391 and other decisions of Andra Pradesh High Court. 6. In our view ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the impugned order which has been passed under Section 127(1) by the Commissioner of Income Tax has merely stated in the said order that for the purpose of co-ordinating investigation, it is necessary to transfer the case to New Delhi. 7. In our view merely mentioning this reason that it is necessary to transfer it for co-ordinated investigation is not sufficient in view of the clear observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Ajanthan Industries (supra) where it has been mentioned that the reasons have to be recorded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess transaction and activities between Kanpur and Delhi. Though Allahabad High Court has taken into consideration various judgments of other Courts, the judgment in the case of Ajantha Industries (supra) was not brought to their notice. In the said case search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act was conducted both at Kanpur and Delhi on 2.7.2003 at the site of the petitioner group of Writ Petitions. The commissioner of Income Tax Kanpur issued notice under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter by order dated 22.2.2005 transferred the investigation to New Delhi. It was mentioned in the impugned order that transfer was made for co-ordinating investigation. Allahabad High Court in paragraph 29 has observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration the observation made by the Apex Court in the said judgment and also the judgments of other High Courts the contention of the petitioner in the said case was rejected. The ratio of the said judgment in our view would not apply to the facts of the present case. It is to be noted that the judgment of Ajantha was not brought to the notice of the Court even other facts which apparently were considered by Allahabad High Court are referred in paragraph 6 as under:- The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Kanpur, by means of the impugned order dated February 22, 2005/annexure 3 to the writ petition transferred the case of the petitioner from the Assessing Officer at Kanpur to the Assessing Officer, New Delhi; the relevant portio....