S.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ petitions are directed against the order, dt. 4th March, 1981, passed by the CBDT (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of s. 127 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), whereby the cases of the petitioners were transferred from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to the ITO, X Ward, Bombay.
(2.) SHRI Rishikul Vidyapeeth, Laxmangarh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1245/81, is an educational institution registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1959. SHRI Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram, Laxmangarh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1246/81, is said to be a part and parcel of SHRI Rishikul Vidyapeeth. Both the petitioners aforesaid were earlier being assessed for the purpose of income-tax by the ITO, Sikar. Subsequently, in the year 1979, the CIT, Jaipur, transferred the cases of the petitioners from the ITO, Sikar, to the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur. By notice, dt. 17th July, 1980, sent by the Board, the petitioners were informed that the Board proposed to transfer their cases from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to ITO, X Ward, Bombay, under s. 127 of the Act in order to facilitate detailed and co-ordinated investigation at Bombay in the light of certain financial transactions conducted there and because connected cases were being assessed by the 5th ITO, X-Ward, Bombay. By the notice aforesaid the petitioners were informed that if they had any objection to the aforesaid proposal they may appear before Avtar Singh, Member (Income-tax), of the Board, on 25th Aug., 1980, and that in case they did not wish to appear personally they may state their objections in writing so as to reach the Board by 25th Aug., 1980. In response to the said notice the petitioners submitted their objections dt. 16th Aug., 1980. Thereafter, the impugned order, dt. 4th March, 1981, was passed by the Board whereby the cases of the petitioners were transferred from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to the ITO, X-Ward, Bombay. In the said order it is stated that the transfer is effected to facilitate the coordinated investigation along with other connected cases. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of transfer, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions wherein they have prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to quash the notice, dt. 17th July, 1980, and the order dt. 4th March, 1981, and to restrain respondent No. 3, namely, the ITO, X- Ward, Bombay, from proceeding with the cases of the petitioners in pursuance of the order of transfer, dt. 4th March, 1981. We have heard Shri G.S. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions. Before dealing with the contentions urged by Singhvi, it would be convenient to set out the provisions contained in s. 127(1) of the Act which reads as under: 127. (1) The CIT may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more of the following officers subordinate to him, namely :-- (a) any ITO or ITOs; (b) any ITO or ITOs having concurrent jurisdiction with the IAC, to any other ITO or ITOs (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction with the IAC) also subordinate to him and the Board may similarly transfer any case from-- (i) any ITO or ITOs, or (ii) any ITO or ITOs having concurrent jurisdiction with the IAC, to any other ITO or ITOs (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction with the IAC). . . ." The first contention urged by Singhvi was that the petitioners were not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the impugned order of transfer was passed by the Board. We are unable to accept the said contention of Singhvi. It is not disputed that prior to the passing of the impugned order the petitioners had been served with the notice, dt. 17th July, 1980, whereby the petitioners were informed about the proposal for a transfer of their cases from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to ITO, X Ward, Bombay, under s. 127 of the Act as well as the reason for the proposed transfer and the petitioners were further informed that if they had any objection to the said proposal they could personally appear before Avtar Singh, Member (Income-tax) of the Board, on 25th Aug., 1980, or if they did not wish to appear personally, they might send their objections in writing so as to reach the Board by 25th Aug., 1980. In response to the said notice the petitioners had submitted their objections in writing dt. 16th Aug., 1980. It is thus clear that the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of making their submissions against the proposal for a transfer of their cases and they did make their submission against the aforesaid proposal. The submission of Singhvi was that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioners, even though a request to that effect was made in the objections, dt. 16th Aug., 1980, submitted by them. We, however, find that in the notice dt. 17th July, 1980, the petitioners were informed that they could appear personally before Avtar Singh, Member (Income-tax) of the Board on 25th Aug., 1980. There is nothing on the record to show why the petitioners could not appear before Avtar Singh, Member (Income-tax) of the Board, on 25th Aug., 1980, and whether they had asked for any other date for appearing before the Member (Income-tax) of the Board and their request was refused by the Member (Income-tax) of the Board. In the circumstances, the contention of Singhvi that the petitioners were not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the passing of the impugned order of transfer, cannot be accepted. The second contention urged by Singhvi was that under sub-s. (1) of s. 127 of the Act it is incumbent upon the authority to give reasons for transfer of the cases and that in the present case no reason has been given for the transfer of the cases of the petitioners from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to the ITO, X Ward, Bombay. According to Singhvi the statement in the impugned order that the transfer is effected to facilitate co-ordinated investigations along with other connected cases, cannot be regarded as a reason within the meaning of sub-s. (1) of s. 127 of the Act. In support of his aforesaid submission Singhvi has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajantha Industries vs. CBDT 1976 CTR (SC) 79 : (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC) : TC 69R.638. In Ajantha Industries vs. CBDT (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the reasons for a transfer had not been communicated to the assessee and the Supreme Court set aside the order of transfer on the ground that the non-communication of the reasons in the order passed under sub-s. (1) of s. 127 of the Act was a serious infirmity in the order. In the said case, the Supreme Court has observed that the requirement of recording reasons under s. 127(1) of the Act is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof was not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee. In the said case, the Supreme Court has quoted the following observations from its earlier decision in Pannalal Binjraj vs. Union of India (1957) 31 ITR 565 (SC) : TC 69R.243, decided with reference to the provisions contained in s. 5(7A) of the Indian IT Act, 1922 : "It would be prudent if the principles of natural justice are followed where circumstances permit, before any order of transfer under s. 5(7A) of the Act is made by the CIT or the Central Board of Revenue, as the case may be, and notice is given to the party affected and he is afforded a reasonable opportunity of representing his views on the question and the reasons for the order are reduced, however briefly, to writing ." In the present case, we find that in the impugned order dt. 4th March. 1981, it has been stated that the transfer was effected to facilitate co-ordinated investigations along with other connected cases. The aforesaid statement in the impugned order of transfer discloses the reasons for the transfer of the cases of the petitioners. It cannot, therefore, be said that the reasons for transfer have not been recorded in the order of transfer and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajantha Industries vs. CBDT (supra) can have no application to the facts of the present case. Singhvi has further submitted that the Board ought to have given its reasons for rejecting the submissions made by the petitioners in their objections dt. 16th Aug., 1980, which was submitted in response to the notice dt. 17th July, 1980, and that the failure to give any reasons for rejecting the aforesaid submissions renders the order of transfer void. In support of his aforesaid submission Singhvi has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. AIR 1970 SC 1302, North Bihar Agency vs. State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 1758 : (1981) 3 SCC 131 and Barium Chemicals Ltd. vs. Company Law Board (1966) 36 Comp. Cas. 639 : AIR 1967 SC 295.
(3.) A perusal of the objections dt. 16th Aug., 1980, submitted by the petitioners, shows that in the said objections the petitioners have adverted to the fact that the activities of the petitioners are confined to District Sikar, in Rajasthan and that the petitioners have no place of activity at Bombay and that if their cases are transferred the petitioners would suffer great inconvenience and hardship. In the said objections the petitioners have, however, not made any submission in reply to the reason disclosed in the notice dt. 17th July, 1980, for the proposed transfer of their cases, viz., to facilitate detailed and co-ordinated investigation at Bombay in the light of certain financial transactions conducted there and that the connected cases are assessed by the 5th ITO, X Ward, Bombay. In their objections dt. 16th Aug., 1980, the petitioners have, on the other hand, admitted that Rishikul Vidyapeeth collects donations from businessmen at Bombay. Thus, we find that in the objections that were filed by the petitioners there was nothing to controvert the reason for transfer which was disclosed in the notice dt. 17th July, 1980. In passing the impugned order, the Board could, therefore, proceed on the basis that the petitioners had nothing to say against the reason which had been disclosed in the notice dt. 17th July, 1980. In our opinion the fact that in the impugned order the Board has not given any reasons for rejecting the submissions contained in the objections dt. 16th Aug., 1980, filed by the petitioners, is of no consequence inasmuch as the said submissions do not deal with the reason that had been disclosed in the notice dt. 17th July, 1980, for the proposed transfer. In the matter of transfer of a case under s. 127 of the Act the convenience of the assessee cannot override the need of the Revenue for a better investigation of the case. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Singhvi that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that it does not show that the objections submitted by the petitioners against the proposed transfer of case were not considered by the Board. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar, (supra), which related to the cancellation of a licence of dealership under the U.P. Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1962, as well as in North Bihar Agency vs. State of Bihar (supra), which related to the cancellation of a drug licence, have no application to the present case. Similarly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. vs. Company Law Board (supra), has no application to the present case. No other contention was urged by Singhvi. We, therefore, find no merit in these writ petitions and they are, accordingly, dismissed summarily.;