Calcutta High Court
Bal Chand Purohit And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 8 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007)211CTR(CAL)569, [2006]286ITR423(CAL)
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Tapan Kumar Dutt
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against an order dated March 22, 2006, whereby the hon'ble first court has dismissed the writ application filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated December 27, 2005, made under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter rejected to as "the said Act").
2. The ground on which the order is challenged is that no reason was disclosed by the authorities in the show-cause notice dated November 25, 2005.
3. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing before us on behalf of the petitioner, contended that non-disclosure of reason in the show-cause notice amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing as contemplated under the provisions of Section 127 of the said Act. He further relied upon the decisions reported in Chotanagpur Industrial Gases P. Ltd. v. CTT and Ajantha Industries v. CBDT in support of his such contention.
4. We have perused the said show-cause notice which is also set out by the hon'ble first court in the said order dated March 22, 2005, as well as the impugned order passed by the said authorities.
5. The hon'ble first court as it appears relied upon the said relevant portion of the order and came to the conclusion that the transfer proposal was made for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation which has been specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice and further accepted the contention of the respondent authorities for the show-cause notice contained are easy.
6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the reason was duly disclosed in the said show-cause notice as well as the order passed by the authorities and she relied upon the decision reported in Firozabad Glass and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. ITO and Mangal Chand and Sons v. CBDT .
7. After hearing learned Counsel and also after considering the decisions cited before us and further the decisions reported in Jharkhand Mukti Morcha v. CIT and Madhav Sharan Agrawal v. CIT , we are not in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Chatterjee that the said show-cause notice is without giving any reason and furthermore it appears to us that after giving a chance of being heard to the petitioner, the order was passed by the said authorities. It would be evident from the said order and the notice that the reason of transfer proposal was made for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation and further for centralisation of the case it is proposed to centralise the cases of about 200 individuals, firms and companies created by the assessee group for giving accommodating entries to a large number of beneficiaries of Jaipur have been seized from the office of M/s. B. C. Purohit and Company. In order to have a thorough and co-ordinated investigation the assessee's case with the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Circle 3, Jaipur. Therefore, in our opinion, the said reason is a good reason.
8. In these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order so passed by the hon'ble first court. The applications and the appeals are dismissed.