Dev Wines Sales Corporation Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court)
An order of transfer is more in the nature of an administrative exercise of power and the scope of interference wherein in any case is limited and unless the administrative power is shown to have been exercised without authority under the law and/or for mala fide reason, no case for interference is made out. In this context, reference may be made to Pannalal Binjraj supra cited by the counsel for the petitioner himself. The said judgment dismissed the challenge to the validity of the transfer order and to Section 5(7A) of the then Income Tax Act (and equivalent of Section 127 of the 1961 Act), reasoning that, (a) though convenience of the assessee is the main consideration in determining the place of assessment but exigencies of tax collection also have to be considered and the primary object of the Act, viz. the assessment of income tax, has got to be achieved; (b) in order to assess the tax payable by an assessee more conveniently and efficiently, it may be necessary to have the same assessed by an Income Tax Officer of an area other than the one in which the assessee resides or carries on business; (c) it may be that the nature and volume of his business is such or that the assessee is so connected with various other individuals or organisations in the way of earning his income as to render such extra territorial investigation necessary before he may be properly assessed; (d) the determination of the question, whether a particular Income Tax Officer should assess the case of the assessee, depends on the convenience of the assessee as well as the exigencies of tax collection and it would be open to the prescribed authorities under the Act to transfer the case of a particular assessee from the Income Tax Officer of the area within which he resides or carries on business, to any other Income Tax Officer, if the exigencies of tax collection warrant the same; (e) infringement of the right to be assessed by the Income Tax Officer of the place where the assessee resides or carries on business is not a material infringement and is only a deviation of a minor character from the general standard and does not necessarily involve a denial of equal rights, for the simple reason that even after such transfer, the case is dealt with under the normal procedure prescribed in the Act; (f) the authorities under the Income Tax Act have to determine what are the proper cases in which such power should be exercised, having regard to the object of the Act and ends to be achieved; and, (g) however the principles of natural justice have to be complied before exercising the power.
All the other judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner, are on the aspect of opportunity of hearing and turn on their own facts but we have hereinabove already held that in the fact of the present case there was sufficient compliance with the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice.
