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 1, Cited by 8]

Calcutta High Court

Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 January, 2016

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

ORDER SHEET
                                      WP 888 of 2006

                           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                             Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                    ORIGINAL SIDE




                                SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL

                                          Versus

      THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - III AND OTHERS


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
  Date : 27th January, 2016.

                                                                            Appearance:
                                                    Mr. Ashok Kumar Bhattacharyya, Adv.
                                                                     ...for the petitioner.

                                                                       Md. Nizamuddin, Adv.
                                                                       ...for the respondents.

The Court : An exercise of power under Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in respect of the first writ petitioner is under challenge on the ground that no opportunity was given to the first writ petitioner to place its case as mandated by the Section itself.

The Income Tax authorities are represented. The learned advocate is not in a position to substantiate that any opportunity of hearing was given to the writ petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order dated February 28, 2006.

Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to transfer any case from one or more assessing officers subordinate to him to any other assessing officer or officers after giving a 2 reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and whenever it is possible to do so after recording his reasons for the same.

In the present case, by the order dated February 28, 2006 the Commissioner has transferred the assessment of the first writ petitioner from Kolkata to Delhi. However, the Commissioner did not give any opportunity of hearing to the first writ petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. The impugned order is also unreasoned.

In such circumstances, I am of the view that the Commissioner has acted beyond the powers given under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in passing the impugned order. The same is, therefore, set aside.

This order will, however, not prevent the Commissioner to pass a fresh order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the first writ petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, WP No.888 of 2006 is allowed. No order as to costs.

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) sp2.