Delhi High Court
Smt. Sarita Jain vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 13 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)179CTR(DEL)543, [2003]261ITR499(DELHI)
Bench: D.K. Jain, Mahmood Ali Khan
JUDGMENT
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notice dated July 31, 2002, and the letter dated October 28, 2002, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle XXI, Kolkata, under Sections 142(1) and 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), calling upon the petitioner to furnish information for the purpose of assessment for the block period April 1, 1990, to February 12, 2001.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner, an individual, is that the said notice and the letter are without jurisdiction inasmuch as she has been a regular assessed in Delhi for the last many years and at no point of time before the issue of the impugned notice/letter she had received any intimation regarding transfer of her case from Delhi. It is pleaded that only by virtue of letter dated October 28, 2002, the petitioner had learnt about an order purportedly passed under Section 127(2) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VII, on October 15, 2002, allegedly transferring her case to Kolkata. It is asserted that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of being heard, if such an order was in fact passed.
3. When the matter had come up for motion hearing on December 10, 2002, Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents had sought time to seek instructions. He has now produced before us a letter, dated December 10, 2002, issued to him by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Headquarters VII, New Delhi, instructing him to inform this court that the Commissioner was ready to give a fresh opportunity to the petitioner and then pass a fresh order under Section 127(2) of the Act, if considered necessary.
4. In view of the said instructions, we deem it unnecessary to go into the merits of this petition. It would suffice to only note that the dicta laid down by the apex court in Ajantha Industries v. CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281, still hold the field, irrespective of the fact whether the case falls under Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 127 of the Act. Therefore, before transferring the case of an assessed, a notice, containing reasons for the proposed transfer should be given to the assessed concerned ; an opportunity of hearing should be granted and thereafter a speaking order considering the objections raised is to be passed. Besides, such an order has to be communicated to the assessed concerned disclosing the reasons for the transfer.
5. We, accordingly, dispose of this petition with a direction that, as agreed, the Commissioner concerned shall grant a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking a fresh decision whether her income-tax cases are required to be transferred from New Delhi to Kolkata. Till a final decision in that behalf is taken, no further proceedings shall take place before the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle XXI, Kolkata. Needless to add that the effect of this consent order would be that the order dated January 15, 2002, stated to have been passed by the Commissioner, Delhi VII, under Section 127(2) of the Act stands revoked.
6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Copy of the order be issued dusty to counsel for the parties.