Amitabha Dutta, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner, Mangal Chand & Sons, a partnership firm having its head office and principal place of business situated at Calcutta, challenges the order dated November 15, 1978, passed under Section 127(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, a copy of which is annexure-C to the writ petition by which the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT" for short) transferred the case of the petitioner from the Income-tax Officer ("ITO" for short), District V(1), Survey Ward, Calcutta, to the ITO, District III(18), New Delhi.
(2.) The petitioner's case may be briefly stated. The petitioner is regularly assessed under the provisions of the I.T. Act at Calcutta and all the relevant books of account in connection with the business of the petitioner are kept at Calcutta. A purported notice dated October 19, 1978 from respondent No. 3, Under Secretary, CBDT, proposed to transfer the case of the petitioner from the ITO, District V(1), Survey Ward, Calcutta, to the ITO, Dist. III( 18), New Delhi, and the reason for the purported transfer was stated to be facility of "Co-ordinated Investigation". The petitioner was asked if he had any objection to the proposed transfer, to appear for being heard or state his objections in writing. The petitioner sent a reply dated November 5, 1978 (annexure "B" to the writ petition), objecting to the proposed transfer, since the entire business of the petitioner was being done in Calcutta and they did not have any connection whatsoever in Delhi. It was also stated in the written objection that if the case was transferred to Delhi, it would create unnecessary difficulties and harassment to the assessee as well as to the Department in getting the assessment completed in Delhi, since the entire records would have to be brought to Delhi and taxes to be paid in Delhi while the business would be carried on in Calcutta. The petitioner's representative also appeared before respondents Nos. 1 and/or 3 on November 6, 1978, and orally placed the objections to the proposed transfer. Thereafter, on or about March 7, 1979, the petitioner received the purported order dated November 15, 1978, passed by respondent No. 1 under Section 127(1) of the I.T. Act purporting to transfer the petitioner's case from the ITO, District V(I), Survey Ward, Calcutta, to the ITO, Dist. III(18), New Delhi. It was alleged in the said purported order that the transfer was effected in the interest of proper investigation and it would take effect from November 25, 1978. Thereafter, on March 9, 1979, the petitioner wrote to respondent No. 1 requesting it to withdraw the order of transfer on various grounds and demanding justice. The petitioner's case is that the purported order of transfer has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and/or the provisions of Section 127 of the I.T. Act and in contravention of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
(3.) Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 being the CBDT, ITO, District V(1), Survey Ward, Calcutta, Under Secretary, CBDT, and Union of India, respectively, have in their return opposed the writ petition stating that having regard to the interest of proper investigation, the petitioner's case along with the cases of 13 other assessees were transferred to the ITO, District III(18), New Delhi. The provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act were complied with. The reason for the proposed transfer was mentioned in the show-cause notice to the petitioner giving sufficient indication as to why the transfer of the petitioner's case was to be made (along with the cases of 13 other assessees) to facilitate co-ordinated investigation. There was no obligation on the part of the CBDT to disclose details of investigation that was to be made in those cases. The charge of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act is baseless as the reason for transfer was recorded in the order passed on November 15, 1978, and communicated to the petitioner. The question of contravention of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution does not arise at all.;