Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 4]

Gujarat High Court

Anuben Lalabhai Bharwad vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 on 22 March, 2016

Author: Harsha Devani

Bench: Harsha Devani, G.R.Udhwani

                     C/SCA/4473/2016                                              ORDER




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4473 of 2016
                                                 TO
                         SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4475 of 2016
         ==========================================================
                        ANUBEN LALABHAI BHARWAD....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
              PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, & 1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         UMAIDSINGH BHATI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

                                         Date : 22/03/2016


                                       COMMON ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

1. Mr. Umaidsingh Bhati, learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the court to the objections raised against the proposed transfer of cases of the petitioners in exercise of powers under section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Referring to the impugned order dated 6.1.2016 passed under section 127(2) of the Act, it was pointed out that no reasons have been assigned by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as regards the contentions raised by the petitioners. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, (1976) 102 ITR 281, wherein the court has held that the requirement of recording reasons under section 127(1) is a mandatory Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Wed Mar 23 02:52:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/4473/2016 ORDER direction under the law and non-communication thereof is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee.

2. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioners, Issue Notice returnable on 29th March, 2016. On the returnable date, it would be open for the learned advocate for the petitioners to press for interim relief.

3. Direct service is permitted today.

(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) (G.R.UDHWANI, J.) zgs Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Wed Mar 23 02:52:16 IST 2016