1996 (3) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp; JUDGMENT All the abovementioned writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. We have heard Shri V. K. Upadhyay and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal for the Department. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated April 29, 1994, under section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a true copy of which is a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t petition. Shri Agarwal has submitted that since the petitioners had themselves filed the objection to the proposed transfer, hence, merely because they had not been given notice by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the impugned order of transfer would not be vitiated. We do not agree with this submission of learned standing counsel. In our opinion, a notice has to be given under section 127 whe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, mere filing of the objection does not comply with the requirement of section 127 of the Income-tax Act because as already stated above, unless the assessees know the reasons for the proposed transfer, they will not be able to properly meet the basis for the proposed transfer. Moreover, it may also be pointed out that the averments made in the objection dated March 30, 1994, have not been dealt ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned order and for this reason also the impugned order has been vitiated. That apart the petitioners have alleged in paragraphs 11 and 13 to the writ petition that the transfer order has not been communicated to them. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries v. CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281 that non-communication of the transfer order is a serious infirmity and hence the....