SOUMITRA PAL,J. - (1.) 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 his case nor the order reveals how the written objections dated June 11, 2008, and September 8, 2008, were considered.
(2.) IT has been submitted that in the order impugned the name of the petitioner M/s. Singhal Enterprises (P.) Ltd., appears against serial No. 1 in the schedule of cases transferred. The said order was also challenged by Simple Viniyog Private Limited, whose name appears against serial No. 2, by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 1712 of 2008, Simple Viniyog Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : [2009] 313 ITR 336. The writ petitioner being W. P. No. 1712 of 2008 was heard and by judgment and order dated November 20, 2008, the order of transfer was quashed. Submission has been made that as the facts are similar and the case of the petitioner is covered by the said judgment and order dated Corrected in terms of corrigendum issued by the Calcutta High Court dated 4 -2 -2009 November 20, 2008, an appropriate order may be passed cancelling the order dated October 21, 2008. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed in Rajesh Mahajan v. CIT reported in : [2002] 257 ITR 577 (P&H;) wherein it has been held that non -consideration of the written objections is violative of the legislative mandate of Section 127 of the Act. Learned advocate for the Revenue has submitted that though no mention has been made in the order whether the petitioner had appeared pursuant to the notice of hearing, the petitioner was given an opportunity to appear as is evident from the second paragraph of the order under challenge. Submission has been made that the two written objections proceeded mainly on the basis of personal inconvenience of the petitioner in attending the proceedings and the contentions have been dealt with in paragraph 5 of the impugned order. Relying on the judgment of the apex court in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. reported in : AIR 1970 SC 1302, it has been submitted that it has to be seen whether the reasons in arriving at a conclusion is cogent and as personal inconvenience is the primary grievance of the petitioner, 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 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. In the interest of natural justice and in pursuance of 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 assessees 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 assessee 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 assessee, 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 Nos. 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.;