TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (4) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to give effect to the impugned order dated June 18, 2004, and in pursuance thereof no record of the company be transferred from Kanpur to Mumbai. (c) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of ad interim mandamus staying the operation and effect of the impugned order dated June 18, 2004 during the pendency of the present writ petition before this hon'ble court, and further direct the respondents not to transfer the records of the petitioner company from Kanpur to Mumbai or else great hardship and inconvenience shall be caused to the petitioner who shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. (d) Any such order or further orders be passed in favour of the petitioners as this h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel for the petitioner and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Act, the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner have been empowered to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers to any other Assessing Officer where they are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, etc., after recording reasons and giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. According to learned counsel, in the present case, even though opportunity of hearing was given, no reasons have been recorded for transferring the cases. He submitted that the order dated June 18,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Director General and, therefore, not only opportunity of hearing was required to be given but also reasons ought to have been recorded before transferring the cases. Even though opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioners we find that in the order no reasons have been recorded. The order dated June 18, 2004, is reproduced below: "Government of India Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax-II 15/295-A, Vaibhav Building, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208 001 Order Dated 18-6-2004 No. 17/2004-05 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and all other powers enabling me in this behalf, I, the Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Kanpur, hereby transfer the cases, p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Income-tax, Kanpur. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-I, Mumbai. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-I, Mumbai. 4. The Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Kanpur, Mumbai. 5. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) I and II, Kanpur. 6. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (Central Range-2), Mumbai. 7. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (Range-4), Mumbai. 8. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CC-VIII, Mumbai. 9. The Income-tax Officer (Judl/Tech/Sp&R), O/o CIT-I & II, Kanpur. 10. The Record Keeper, O/o the Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Kanpur. 11. The concerned assessee. (Sd.)...... (A.P. Amar) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (HQ Admn.) For Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en dealt with in the transfer order. It may be mentioned here that learned standing counsel has sought to justify the transfer of cases on the basis of the guidelines given in Circular No. 225 dated September 20, 2001, where it has been stated that in search cases all the cases should be centralised. It is well-settled that the order has to be judged on the basis of the reasons given therein. It cannot be supplemented by means of an affidavit. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, the apex court has held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of ....