SOUMITRA PAL,J. - (1.) THE court : Let affidavits of service filed in court today be kept with the records.
(2.) SINCE the orders impugned and issues involved are common, the two writ petitions have been heard analogously. However, for the sake of convenience I shall deal with the facts in W.P. No. 200 of 2009 (Dilip Kumar Agarwal). In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the order dated February 11, 2009, passed by the Commissioner of Income -tax, Kolkata -XV, Kolkata, respondent No. 1 directing transfer of the cases of Dilip Kumar Agarwal and Krishna Kumar Agarwal, the petitioners from Income -tax Officer, Ward No. 44(1), Kolkata and the Income -tax Officer, Ward No. 43(3), Kolkata, respectively, to the ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle -Ill, Patna, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub -section (2)(a) of Section 127 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
(3.) IT is submitted by Mr. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that though pursuant to the notices dated January 15, 2009, proposing transfer, the petitioners by letters furnished on January 27, 2009, had filed detailed objections, those have not been considered. Though simultaneous searches were not conducted as evident from the panchnama, yet transfers have been directed on the said basis. Since no material or evidence has been produced by the respondents to support the view that the petitioners have business connection with their father, the stand taken in the order impugned is unjust. Moreover, since positive statements in the written objection stating that the petitioners have no business connection with Ratanlal Agarwal, their father, have not been dealt with, the impugned order is bad. The learned senior advocate referred to the judgments in R.K. Agarwal v. CIT reported in : [2006] 283 ITR 532 (All) and in P.S. Housing Finance P. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2007] 290 ITR 316 (Cal) in support of his submission.;