JUDGMENT
By the Court
These two Original Petitions are connected cases, O.P. No. 14372 of 2001 is filed by M/s. Hotel Panchami, a partnership firm functioning at Thiruvalla, hereinafter referred to as the “firm” and O.P. No. 14380 of 2001 is filed by M/s. Redwood Hotels (P) Ltd., a private limited company functioning at Thiruvalla, hereinafter referred to as the ‘company’. The connection between these two is that the company owns the hotel building which is leased out to the firm for carrying on the hotel business. Both the company and firm are income-tax assessees before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Kottayam, and Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Thiruvalla respectively. The company as well as the firm in these two Original Petitions challenge Ext. P11 which is the common order produced in O.P. No. 14372 of 2001, issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin, transferring the files to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Calicut. The petitioners are questioning the transfer on the ground that Calicut is far away from Kottayarn as well as from Thiruvalla and so much so, the petitioners are put to serious trouble for appearance in assessment proceedings. Their further case is that the petitioners are not to be assessed as a search case and the notice. Ext. P7 produced in O.P. No. 14372 of 2001 under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act is totally misconceived. In fact counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice Ext. P3 produced in O.P. No. 14372 of 2001 whereunder the files of the petitioners were once transferred to the Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. In fact, it is only after Ext. P3 that is after the order of transfer of the petitioners’ files from Kottayam and Thiruvalla to Thiruvananthapuram, that a further transfer under the impugned order Ext. P11 is made to Calicut.
2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and I have gone through the same. It is pointed out in the counter affidavits filed in both the cases, on the same lines, that the petitioners being to a group of business called “Amrutha Group” which is controlled by Mr. K.T. Thomas, Mr. K.T. Joseph, Mr. K.T. Mathew and Mr. K.M. Thomas, who are all residing in Calicut. The residential addresses of the partners/Directors of the firm and the company are also given in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit. The respondents have also further pointed out that there was simultaneous search on 29-7-1999 in 12 premises managed by the directors/partners including their residences. The purpose for transfer is to centralise the group of cases for proper investigation and assessment of all the assessees.
3. I have gone through section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, under which Ext. P 11 order and the earlier transfer order were issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. I find that section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act gives power to the Chief Commissioner to transfer the file from one assessing officer to another within his jurisdiction. However, sub-section (2) contemplates consent between the Chief Commissioners if file is transferred from the area of one Chief Commissioner to that of another. Section 127 only provides for an administrative arrangement authorising Chief Commissioners to transfer the files from one officer to another for better and more efficient handling of the files. When group cases are handled, it is always desirable to have one Officer handling all the assessments together so that related transactions can be better appreciated by the Officer. There is sufficient evidence in this case to connect the two petitioners, because the Company leased out its building to the firm for carrying on its business. The two petitioners are assessed by different officers stationed at nearby places, that is at Kottayam and Thiruvalla.
Further the business affairs of the petitioners, that is the company and firm, are obviously handled by directors/partners and most of them, as per the address given in the counter affidavit, are residing in and around Calicut. Secondly the inconvenience caused to the petitioners by the transfer will not give them any right to prevent the transfer of files for better and more efficient handling of the cases.
4. The petitioners’ counsel has pointed out that it is not correct to say that all the partners/directors are residing within the Calicut area and in fact some of them are residing in some other areas. If that be so, the department should transfer files of those persons also to the assessing officer within whose jurisdiction largest number of assessees are residing. Therefore, I am of the view that the department is justified in transferring the files to Calicut where most of the partners/directors are residing. Counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice, and is accepted by standing counsel for the Income-tax department, that Central Circle Office is functioning at Kottayam. Standing counsel has pointed out that the purpose of constituting Central Circle is to periodically scrutinise certain files, making assessments for a number of years and return the files to the officers who are previously handling the files. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that since Central Circle Office is at Kottayam, the files can be transferred to Kottayam. I do not know how this would help the petitioners who are putting forward the case of inconvenience on account of transfer of files when the partners/directors are residing as stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, in and around Calicut. Apparently the transfer of all files to Calicut should suit the convenience of the partners and directors of the Firm and Company who are in control of the affairs of these concerns. Of course, it is for the department to consider consolidation of all the files of the firms and companies and the partners and directors, including those who are now assessed at Calicut and send it to the appropriate station. This is a matter for consideration by the department. Since the petitioners’ request for transfer of files to Kottayam, the Chief Commissioner can consider the case of transfer of files to Kottayam, if it suits the department. However, I make it clear that there is no scope for interference by this court in these matters which are purely administrative in nature, except when there is allegation of mala fides or want of jurisdiction. No assessee has a vested right to have his assessment decided by any officer or at any place. It is for the head of the department to allocate work among the officers under him subject to the Act and Rules.
Original Petitions are disposed of as above.