TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioners from Kanpur to Delhi. A show-cause notice dated March 16, 2005, was given to the petitioner as required under section 127(1) of the Act/annexure 3 to the writ petition giving opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order under section 127(2) of the Act. The said notice was given in view of the search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act conducted on July 2, 2003, in the premises belonging to the firm and companies (referred to as Shikhar Gutkha group) and their partners/directors while proposing to transfer the cases of the said assessee-petitioner "for the purposes of co-ordinated and effective investigation" from Kanpur to Delhi. The petitioner, Virendra Kumar Jain, submitted reply dated April 1, 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said objections, the Commissioner of Income-tax, passed the impugned order of transfer dated April 4, 2005/annexure 5 to the writ petition. For convenience paras. 4, 5 and 6 the impugned order are reproduced below: "The assessees have mainly objected to the said transfer on the ground that they have no connection with the Shikhar Gutkha group. In the reply dated April 1, 2005, the assessees have requested for furnishing of the material and evidence on the basis of which it was claimed in the notice dated March 16, 2005, that the said cases are connected with Shikhar Gutkha group. It was explained to the assessees' representative during the course of hearing on April 1, 2005, that as far as the case of M/s. Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar is co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is engaged in grinding of supari being used in gutkha manufactured by M/s. Trimurti Fragrances P. Ltd., and he is the main grinder of supari for the group. The said case is, therefore, also connected with the Shikhar Gutkha group. The objections raised by the said two assesses against the proposed transfer of their cases to New Delhi are, therefore, not tenable. Since all other cases of the Shikar Gutka group, including the cases which were earlier being assessed at Kanpur as well as the case of the main company of the group, namely, Trimurti Fragrances P. Ltd., have already been centralised with the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-9, New Delhi it is necessary to centralise the said two cases, namely, M/s. Vijay Kumar P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al) were in the management of M/s. Trimurti Fragrances P. Ltd., the entire shareholding family; as well as the control of these "units" vested in the members of one; it was, therefore, clear that M/s. Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar is an integral part of the Shikhar Gutkha group, the case of Shri Virendar Kumar Jain also had connection with the case of M/s. Trimurti Frangrances P. Ltd. Since the factory premises of the said assessee situated at 304-305, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi, were owned by "Karam Traders P. Ltd." wherein his father (Murlidhar Agarwal) and Prashant Agrawal (grandson of Murlidhar Agarwal) were directors; that Shri Virendra Kumar Jain, proprietor of M/s. Mahabir Grinding, was the main grinder of supari used in the produ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ystal clear and settled by a catena of the decisions of this court and the apex court on this issue. This court cannot go into the "sufficiency" of the reasons: There is no pleading that the impugned order of transfer is due to "bias" or "mala fide" or otherwise "arbitrary". The reasons indicated in the impugned order cannot be said to be irrelevant. Reference may be made to the decision of this court in the case of Madhav Sharan Agrawal v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 809. We may refer to our judgment rendered today, i.e., February 23, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 355 of 2005: Trimurti Fragrances ft Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 547, wherein we had an occasion to deal with this aspect in detail. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that....