1998 PLP 2199 (PTD)
MADHAV SHARAN AGRAWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2199 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 221 I T R 809 |
| Bench Members | M. Katju and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ, |
| Parties | MADHAV SHARAN AGRAWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2199 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2199 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 221 I T R 809 bench comprising: M. Katju and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2199 (PTD) (MADHAV SHARAN AGRAWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rakesh Agarwal for Petitioner.
- Standing Counsel for Respondent.
- We have heard Shri Rakesh Agarwal, for the petitioner, and learned standing counsel, for the Department.
Headnotes / Summary
Assessee doing brokerage business
Notice to assessee mentioning reason for transfer
Purpose of transfer to centralise cases relating to stock brokers
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961,S.127. The assessee's case was transferred from Mathura to Kanpur by the Commissioner of Income-tax. On a writ petition contending the orders as passed without an opportunity being given and without giving reasons: Held, that the notice giving opportunity to the assessee had been annexed to the petition. The notice mentioned the reason of transfer, namely, that it was proposed to centralise the cases of all the stock brokers, which was a good reason: Held also, that if the assessee had stopped doing brokerage business, the cases relating to periods during which he was doing the business alone would stand transferred.
Judgment & Decree
Commissioner of Income-tax. On a writ petition contending the orders as passed without an opportunity being given and without giving reasons: Held, that the notice giving opportunity to the assessee had been annexed to the petition. The notice mentioned the reason of transfer, namely, that it was proposed to centralise the cases of all the stock brokers, which was a good reason: Held also, that if the assessee had stopped doing brokerage business, the cases relating to periods during which he was doing the business alone would stand transferred. Rakesh Agarwal for Petitioner. Standing Counsel for Respondent. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order, dated December 8, 1993, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax Agra, transferring the cases of the petitioner from the file of the Income-tax Officer, Mathura, to the Assistant Commissioner, Circle 3(4), Kanpur, under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We have heard Shri Rakesh Agarwal, for the petitioner, and learned standing counsel, for the Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without giving reasons. We are not in agreement with this submission, since Annexure 1 to the petition is a notice giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The notice itself mentions the reason of transfer, namely, that it is proposed to centralise the cases of all the stock brokers, which, in our opinion, is a good reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has now stopped the business of brokerage. If that is so, we direct that up to the period when the petitioner was doing brokerage business, his cases stand transferred to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income -tax, Kanpur, but for the period after he stopped doing brokerage business, he will be assessed at Mathura. With these observations, this petition is finally disposed of. M.B.A./1330/FC Petition disposed.