High Court Of Allahabad
Radico Khaitan Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors.
Section 127
Sushil Harkauli & Vikram Nath, JJ.
Writ Petn. No. 1086 of 2006
10th July, 2006
Counsel Appeared
Ravi Kant with Vishal Agarwal, for the Petitioner : Govind Krishna, for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
By the court :
We have heard Sri Ravi Kant, senior advocate assisted by Sri Vishal Agarwal, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Krishna, advocate, for the respondent-IT Department.
2. The petitioner is challenging the order dt. 20th June, 2006 passed by the CIT, Moradabad under s. 127(2)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short referred to as the Act). A copy of the same is enclosed as Annex. 7 to this writ petition. By the impugned order, a case of the petitioner pending before the Asstt. CIT, Range-1, Moradabad, has been transferred to the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi.
3. For ready reference, the contents of s. 127 of the Act, are reproduced below : “127. Power to transfer cases.—
(1) The Director General or Chief CIT or CIT may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more AOs subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other AO or AOs (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him.
(2) Where the AO or AOs from whom the case is to be transferred and the AO or AOs to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to same Director General, or Chief CIT or CIT,— (a) where the Directors General or Chief CITs or CITs to whom such AOs are subordinate are in agreement, then the Director General or Chief CIT or CIT from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where the Directors General or Chief CITs or CITs aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Director General or Chief CIT or CIT, as the Board may, by notification in Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf.
(3) Nothing in sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any AO or AOs (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other AO or AOs (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) and the offices of all such officers are situated in the same city, locality or place.(4) The transfer of a case under sub-s. (1) or sub- s. (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings and shall not render necessary the reissue of any notice already issued by the AO or AOs from whom the case is transferred.
Explanation.—In s. 120 and this section, the word ‘case’ in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date of such order or direction in respect of any year.”
4. Apparently, before the transfer of the case, notice dt. 3rd May, 2006 (Annex. 1) was given by the CIT, Moradabad to the petitioner, which mentioned the reason “centralisation of cases of the petitioner”. Upon receipt of the notice the petitioner made a request vide letter dt. 10th May, 2006 seeking a month’s time to submit reply to the show-cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a reply dt. 24th May, 2006 (Annex. 3) in which the petitioner merely resisted transfer of the petitioner’s cases to a common station (Delhi) and did not suggest any alternative location (more convenient to the petitioner) for consolidation of all these cases before the one single authority. It would be worth mentioning that from the letter head of the petitioner company (Annex. 2), it is clear that their head office is at Delhi and the address mentioned is Plot No. J-1, Block B-1, Mohan Coop. Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044. By the same reply dt. 24th May, 2006, the petitioner asked for the reasons for the proposed transfer. By the letter dt. 29th May, 2006 (Annex. 4), the Asstt. CIT (HQ), Moradabad, informed the petitioner that the petitioner should contact the Chief CIT (Central), New Delhi, for the reasons for the proposed centralization of cases. The petitioner approached the Chief CIT (Central), New Delhi, and from the office of Chief CIT (Central), New Delhi, a letter dt. 14th June, 2006 (Annex. 6) was sent to the petitioner informing the petitioner that the transfer of the 23 cases, consequent to the search and seizure operation conducted on the petitioner’s group of companies, was proposed for the purpose of co-ordinated enquiries and meaningful investigations.
It does not appear that the petitioner thereafter made any further representation or reply or objection in the light of the reasons so disclosed. It also does not appear that the petitioner sought any better particulars of the reasons. Indeed no grievance has been raised in this writ petition that the better particulars could not be sought or further reply could not be submitted due to shortage of time between receipt of the letter dt. 14th June, 2006 and passing of the impugned order dt. 20th June, 2006. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 20th June, 2006. It says that the transfer is being done for the co-ordinated investigation and administrative convenience.
The first objection of the petitioner is that the impugned order does not contain reasons recording of which is mandatory under s. 127 of the Act. In substance the argument means that the reason mentioned in the impugned order and referred above is not sufficient or sufficiently detailed.
The extent of reasons which should find place in an order, in which reasons are required to be recorded, depends upon a variety of reasons such as the nature of the order, the extent and nature of the petitioner’s rights which are affected thereby, the issues involved or the contentions raised or required to be considered, etc. There cannot be any rigid and/or absolute inflexible rule with regard to this.
The petitioner in the present case cannot claim any vested right in investigation or adjudication by a particular forum at a particular station. At best, the petitioner could possibly have some claim to have the petitioner’s convenience also considered for the purpose of fixing a location where all the cases could be consolidated. Cases of similar nature are almost always bunched together or consolidated for the convenience of adjudication and investigation. However we find from the solitary reply given by the petitioner in the present case, that the petitioner was only resisting consolidation of all its cases under one single authority. The petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to the fixing of the location. In fact, petitioner could not have any objection for Delhi as a location as it had its head office situate at Delhi, as already observed in this order. Thus, we find that petitioner had only been raising hypertechnical objections in order to delay and frustrate the consolidation of cases.
In the circumstances, in our opinion, no further or more detailed reasons other than what have been given were called for in the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a second objection about the notice not been more detailed or more precise. In support of the proposition, he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank & Ors. vs. Debasis Das & Ors. 2003 (4) SCC 557 (para 15). Again, the extent of details to be mentioned in the show-cause notice necessarily depends upon a variety of factors such as the allegations made, the proposed action, etc. As a thumb rule while judging the validity of a show-cause notice on this score it has to be seen whether on account of the lack of the details, the petitioner has been prejudiced due to inability to give proper defence.
In our opinion, this simple matter where 23 cases relating to the petitioner’s group were proposed to be brought to one place for co-ordinated investigation did not require any further or better or more detailed reasons.
9. The third objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this order has been passed not on the independent discretion of the CIT, Moradabad, but on the dictate of the Chief CIT (Central), New Delhi. We are unable to sustain even this argument. The purpose of the transfer is quite obvious and in accordance with the normal procedures of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. In absence of the petitioner’s suggestion for a better location more convenient to the petitioner, the Chief CIT (Central) New Delhi, was perfectly justified in transferring all the cases to one common place i.e. Delhi which is centrally located. Thus this suggestion/proposal of the Chief CIT, New Delhi, cannot be said to be vitiated by any kind of mala fides. Further if such a reasonable suggestion, against which no sustainable objection could be shown to us, has been accepted by the CIT, Moradabad, we are unable to hold that the CIT has acted on the “dictate” of the Chief CIT.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find it to be a fit case for interference in our discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, and we are of the opinion that the three other cases i.e., Pannalal Binjraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1957 SC 397 (paras 23, 24), Ajantha Industries & Ors. vs. CBDT & Ors. 1976 CTR (SC) 79 : AIR 1976 SC 437 (paras 913) and Vinay Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. vs. CIT & Anr. (1996) 136 CTR (All) 486 : (1996) 221 ITR 568 (All), also do not help the case of the petitioner for resisting either the consolidation of the cases at one station or fixation of the central location of Delhi for such consolidation.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
[Citation : 292 ITR 507]
