- (1.) WE have heard Sri Satyender Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dananjay Awasthi learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) BY means of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs : - a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.9.2008 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad and also to quash the further proceeding done in pursuance of this order. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, New Delhi to send the case of the petitioner back to Ghaziabad for Adjudication. c -1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the Income Tax Officer (T) for Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad and also the assessment order from the year 2000 -01, 2001 -02, 2002 -03, 2003 -04, 2004 -05, 20005 -06, 2006 -07 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -IV, New Delhi. c)Issue any order of further order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. d)Award the cost of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned transfer order dated 11.9.2008 has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without recording any reason for the transfer of the case from ITO Ward 2 (3), Ghaziabad to Central Circle 4, New Delhi and therefore, the impugned transfer order is patently illegal. Accordingly, The assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of the Income Tax, Central Circle -4, New Delhi are invalid and liable to the quashed. In para -11 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated that "transfer order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is mandatory in nature". The same has not been denied in paragraph -11 of the counter affidavit. The reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the Case of Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, 1976 102 ITR 281 and on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Case of M/s. Bansal Sharevests Services Limited, Kanpur and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur and Another,2006 UPTC 398 and on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income -tax -II, Kanpur, 2009 311 ITR 42.;