SOUMITRA PAL J. - (1.) THE court : Let affidavit of service filed in court today be kept with the record.
(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order under Section 127 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, dated October 21, 2008, passed by the Commissioner of Income -tax, Kolkata -I, respondent No. 1, transferring the file from Kolkata to Ranchi, on the ground that neither the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing to present its case nor the order reveals how the written objections dated June 12, 2008, and September 8, 2008, filed pursuant to the show -cause notices dated May 26, 2008, and September 1/2, 2008, were considered. Relying on the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 0044/1965 : [1966]1SCR466 , it has been contended on behalf of the respondent that personal hearing is not mandatory and it can be supplemented by written objection. Therefore, as written objections were considered, the order impugned is just and proper.
(3.) IN order to appreciate the issue, it is necessary to refer to the relevant portion of the order impugned, which is extracted hereinbelow: Consequent to the search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, in the B.S. Agarwal group of cases, it had been requested by the Commissioner of Income -tax (Central), Ranchi that the cases named in column (2) of the schedule below be centralized for the purpose of co -ordinated investigation with the Assessing Officer mentioned in column 6 of the schedule below. 2. In the interest of natural justice and in pursuance of the requirements of Clause (a) of Sub -section (2) of Section 127, the assessees were provided an opportunity to be heard in the matter of the proposed transfer, by issue of notice dated May 26, 2008. 3. Each of the assessee raised objections against the transfer, on the grounds that neither the directors nor accountants or auditors had any business connection or infrastructure at Ranchi to attend to proceedings of block assessment at offices of the Asst. Commissioner of Income -tax, Central Circles at Ranchi. 4. The said objection was communicated to the Commissioner of Income -tax (Central), Patna, for comments and providing material to indicate the nexus between/amongst the assessees named in the schedule and the other assessees of the group. The Commissioner of Income -tax (Central), vide his letter dated August 26, 2008, communicated the information and grounds on which centralization was being sought. The said information was communicated to the asses -see, vide further show -cause notices, each dated September 2, 2008, relevant copy of which is being made part hereof and annexed to the present order as annexure A. In response, the assessees named at serial No. 1 and 2 of the schedule below filed further rejoinders, all on September 9, 2008. In the said rejoinders, the said assessees reiterated the ground of their practical inconvenience in attending to proceedings at Ranchi, and requested for centralization of the other cases at Kolkata. The copy of the relevant rejoinder to each assessee is enclosed as annexure B. The assessees at serial Nos. 3 and 4 of the schedule below have not filed any rejoinder till date.;