TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (6) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-law, respectively, of the petitioner as well as one M/s. Women's Clinic and Nursing Home at Cuttack, a partnership firm of the aforesaid relatives of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is evident from the assessment orders for the block period in respect of the aforesaid assessees, as enclosed to the writ petition, the said block assessments were completed under the provisions of the Act in the months of October-November, 2000. The petitioner asserts that she received a notice dated September 28, 1999 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle, Cuttack, requiring the petitioner to file her return for the block period. On receipt of the letter, the petitioner by letter dated December 3, 1999, informed the aforesaid authority that she was an existing income-tax assessee under respondent No.2 and further that under the provisions of section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the facts leading to the notice dated September 28, 1999, are required to be informed to the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction over the petitioner, i.e., respondent No.2. In response to the petitioner's reply dated December 3, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eply of the petitioner, by the impugned order dated September 28, 2001, after reciting that search and seizure operations were conducted on October 28, 1998, in the residential and business premises of Dr. Sujta Mohanty, Dr. R. C. Mohanty and other family members and that a portion of the undisclosed income of the aforesaid persons is attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner was informed that it has become necessary to transfer her case to respondent No.3, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1), Cuttack for administrative reasons and for co-ordinated and effective investigation in connection with the block assessment proceeding. Challenging the aforesaid order dated September 28, 2001, the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard Sri R. Goenka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, Income-tax Department. The arguments advanced by Sri Goenka, learned counsel for the petitioner have been short and precise. Learned counsel has submitted that the power vested under section 127 of the Act is a quasi-judicial power and though the contours of the said power cannot be entrapped within any set parameters, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner had attained finality in law under the provisions of section 245-I of the Act and the same cannot be reopened. In this regard Sri Goenka has specifically drawn the attention of the court to the orders of the Settlement Commission, which have been enclosed to the reply affidavit of the petitioner. Controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, Sri U. Bhuyan, learned departmental counsel, has vehemently contended that there were enough materials available with the respondents to connect the income of the petitioner-assessee to the undisclosed income of her relatives, which were the subject matter of the block assessment proceedings. In such a situation, according to Sri Bhuyan, the transfer of the case of the petitioner to Cuttack was made on account of bona fide administrative necessities and no fault can be found with the said action of the respondents. The rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties have received the due and anxious consideration of the court. As the validity of the order dated September 28, 2001, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati transferring the case of the petitioner to Cuttack, alone, is the subject mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and though as a matter of fact the block assessments of Dr. R. C. Mohanty group of cases were completed about a year prior to the order dated September 28, 2001, yet, for an ostensible centralized investigation pertaining to those concluded assessments, the case of the petitioner was transferred to Cuttack by the impugned order dated September 28, 2001. The block assessments of the Dr. R. C. Mohanty group of cases, though closed in October-November, 2000, were set aside in appeal on January 30, 2001. On what terms the appeals were allowed have not been made known to the court. If the said appeals were disposed of with certain directions in terms of which further investigations into the Dr. R. C. Mohanty group of cases were still open, perhaps the Department would still have had a justification to transfer the case of the petitioner in September, 2001. It was, therefore, incumbent on the part of the Department to inform the court of the precise terms in which the appeals were disposed of. This has not been done. Even if benefit is given to the Department on the aforesaid score, the ultimate picture still does not change. Even if it is to be assumed that in September, 2001 the ....