AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Devani, J.—In all these petitions, the Petitioner has challenged the notices dated 6-10-2009 issued by the Respondents u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as well as the order dated 1-10-2009 made u/s 127(2) of the Act.
Heard the learned advocates for the parties.
At the outset, the learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner has placed on record communication dated 14-7-2010 addressed to the Petitioner informing the Petitioner that the notice u/s 153C of the Act has been withdrawn.
Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate for the Respondents has submitted that the said notice has been withdrawn with a view to issue afresh notice under the Act. In response to the said submission, the learned advocate for the Petitioner has contended that it is not permissible for the revenue to issue a fresh notice on the same subject-matter.
In the light of the fact that the notices u/s 153C of the Act have been withdrawn, the first relief claimed in the petitions would no longer survive. In the circumstances, the court does not express any opinion on the respective statements made by the learned advocates for the parties.
Insofar as the challenge to the order dated 1-10-2009 made under Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Act is concerned, learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that in the present case, the transfer has been made from one assessing officer in the city to another assessing officer in the same city. Hence, in the light of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Act, there is no requirement for granting an opportunity of hearing.
On a plain reading of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act, it appears that under Sub-section (3) of Section 127, there is no requirement for grant of an opportunity of hearing when the transfer is from the assessing officer or assessing officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other assessing officer or assessing officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) when the officers are situated in the same city, locality or place. However, the same does not dispense with the requirement of recording reasons as contemplated under Sub-section (1) thereof, which requires the Director General or Chief CIT or CIT to transfer a case from one assessing officer to another after recording his reasons for doing so. A perusal of the impugned order dated 1-10-2009 made under Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Act indicates that the same does not reflect any reasons for transferring the cases from the assessing officer mentioned in col. 4 of the order to the assessing officer mentioned in col. 5 thereof.
In the light of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the impugned order made under Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Act is not in consonance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) thereof and as such, cannot be sustained.
For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders dated 1-10-2009 made under Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.