DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner assails a decision dated December 18, 2012 passed under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 transferring the jurisdiction from Kolkata to Deoghar, Jharkhand.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner refers to the two show- cause notices issued by the Authorities under Section 127 of the Act of 1961 and submits that none of those two notices give any reason for the transfer. He fairly refers to a subsequent notice dated December 6, 2012 of the department, and submits that, although the department for the first time informs the petitioner that there is a survey conducted the survey report itself was not made over to the petitioner. He submits that, by the time the letter dated December 6, 2012 was issued by the department, the petitioner had already filed its reply to the two show-cause notices. The authorised representative was present at the hearing dated December 13, 2012 pursuant to the notice dated December 6, 2012. In such hearing, the authorised representative of the petitioner had submitted that, the petitioner had its activities located in Kolkata and the registered office of the petitioner was in Kolkata. The petitioner had objected to the transfer. He submits that, the Income-tax Authorities cannot consider Deoghar to be the principal place of business of the petitioner in view of the statements made before the Authority on December 18, 2012 as well as the averments made in the writ petition. The registered office of the petitioner is at Kolkata. All the decisions of the petitioner are made at Kolkata. It procures paddy from Burdwan. It transports such paddy to Deoghar for the purpose of processing. The major sales of the finished product are made in West Bengal. He contends that, no sale takes place in Jharkhand or at Deoghar. Therefore Deoghar cannot be construed to be the principal place of business so far as the petitioner is concerned. He refers to the order dated December 18, 2012 and submits that, the reasons for the transfer are inadequate. He submits that, the first reason shown is that, there are sale of the final product as well as sale of the raw materials out of Jharkhand and that the activities of the companies was around Deoghar. He submits that, the other reason is that a transfer should be made for better co- ordination, effective investigation and meaningful assessment. He submits that, none of the reasons given should withstand judicial scrutiny. He further submits that, subsequent to the order dated December 18, 2012 the assessing officer in Kolkata has adjudicated upon an assessment order. He submits that, the petitioner has received a notice from the assessing officer in Kolkata subsequent to the impugned order.
(3.) In support of the contention that, the show-cause notices should contain reasons for issuance thereof, learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon (2010) 320 ITR 361 (Cal) (Naresh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India and Ors.). He relies upon (2014) 365 ITR 273 (Calcutta) (Chirag Vincom (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax ) for the proposition that, reasons are the life blood of a judicial or quasi judicial order. He relies upon (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC) (Ajantha Industries vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes) for the proposition that, an order under Section 127 must contain reasons.;