AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Devani, J.—Rule. Learned advocate for the Respondents is directed to waive service. Considering the controversy involved in the present petitions, which lies in a very narrow compass, the matters are taken up for final hearing today. The issues involved as well as the parties being common, all the petitions were heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
In all these petitions, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 1-10-2009 made by the CIT, Ahmedabad-4 u/s 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), transferring the cases of the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1, Dy. CIT, Central Circle 2(3) as well as the notices dated 6-10-2009 issued by the Respondent No. 1 u/s 153C of the Act in relation to assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09.
Mr. R.K. Patel, learned advocate for the Petitioner has invited attention to the impugned order dated 1-10-2009 made u/s 127(2) of the Act to indicate that the said order is a composite order made in the case of the Petitioners as well as other persons, including Dr. Hemang Ashwinkumar Baxi. It is submitted that against the impugned order dated 1-10-2009, Dr. Hemang Baxi had preferred writ petitions before this Court being Special Civil Appln. Nos. 7047 of 2010 to 7052 of 2010 which have been allowed by a common judgment and order dated 20-7-2010 whereby the impugned order has been quashed and set aside. Referring to the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20-7-2010, it is submitted that the Petitioner being similarly situated is also entitled to the grant of similar relief.
Mr. M.R. Bhatt learned senior advocate for the Respondents is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position.
In the light of the view that the court is inclined to take in the matter, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.
As can be seen from the judgment and order dated 20-7-2010 made by this Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 7047 of 2010 and cognate matters, the impugned order dated 1-10-2009 has been set aside on the ground that the same does not meet with the requirements of Section 127(2) of the Act in as much as the same does not record any reasons for transferring the cases from the assessing officer mentioned in col. 4 thereof to the officer mentioned in col. 5 thereof, viz. the Respondent No. 1 herein. In the circumstances, considering the fact that the impugned order dated 1-10-2009 is a composite order, made in the case of the Petitioner as well as the Petitioner in Special Civil Appln. No. 7047 of 2010, for the reasons recorded in judgment and order dated 20-7-2010 made in the said petition, the impugned order is also required to be set aside qua the Petitioner herein.
As regards the challenge to the notice dated 6-10-2009 u/s 153C of the Act, as can be seen from the impugned notice, the same has been issued by the Respondent No. 1 herein to whom the case of the Petitioner has been transferred by virtue of the order u/s 127(2) of the Act. Thus, it is apparent that the Respondent No. 1 has assumed jurisdiction only by virtue of the order dated 1-10-2009 made u/s 127(2) of the Act. In the circumstances, once the order dated 1-10-2009 u/s 127(2) of the Act is quashed and set aside as a necessary corollary, the Respondent No. 1 would no longer have any jurisdiction qua the Petitioner and as such the impugned notices u/s 153C of the Act issued by the Respondent No. 1 also cannot be sustained.
In the result the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 1-10-2009 u/s 127(2) of the Act (Annex. C to the petitions) as well as the impugned notices dated 6-10-2009 issued u/s 153C of the Act (Annex. B to the petitions) are hereby quashed and set aside in each of the petitions. Rule is made absolute accordingly in each of the petitions, with no order as to costs.
Registry is directed to keep a copy of this order in all the petitions.