Raj Kumar Mangla vs Commissioner Of Income Tax
2010 Latest Caselaw 2418 Del

             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 05.05.2010

+            W.P.(C) 8404/2009

RAJ KUMAR MANGLA                                           ... Petitioner

                                         versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                 ... Respondent

WITH

+ W.P.(C) 8505/2009

RAJ KUMAR MANGLA ... Petitioner

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner      : Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent      : Ms Rashmi Chopra

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. In these petitions, there are essentially two grievances raised by

the petitioner who appeared before us in person. The first grievance is with

regard to the order made under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act), whereby the petitioner's case was

transferred from the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

(Investigation) Circle, Gurgaon to the Office of ITO, Ward No.10(1), Delhi

which falls under the administrative control of the Commissioner of

Income-tax-VII, Delhi. The said transfer order was dated 14.10.1998 and

was to take effect from 30.10.1998. The petitioner is aggrieved by this

transfer order because, according to him, his application for rectification

under Section 154 of the said Act, which was filed before the Commissioner

of Income-tax (Appeals), Faridabad, could not have been transferred under

Section 127(2) of the said Act inasmuch as only the assessment proceedings

could, in his view, be transferred under that provision.

2. The second grievance of the petitioner is that the application

moved by him under Section 154 of the said Act in respect of appeal Nos.

144, 145 and 146/95-96 was disposed of by the Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals), New Delhi without giving him an opportunity of hearing.

The said order disposing of the application under Section 154 was dated

26.04.2005. Incidentally, this was the third application under Section 154

of the said Act filed by the assessee / petitioner seeking rectification of the

very same order. The first two applications under Section 154 were

dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Faridabad.

Thereafter, because the case stood transferred under Section 127(2) of the

said Act, the third application of the petitioner under Section 154 was

rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi by virtue

of the said order dated 26.04.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a

fourth application under Section 154 requesting for rectification of the

alleged mistakes in the impugned order dated 26.04.2005.

3. Insofar as the first grievance of the petitioner is concerned, with

regard to transfer of the case from Gurgaon to Delhi, the petitioner has

agreed before us that he shall not press this point and as such no grievance

subsists insofar as the transfer of the entire case is concerned.

4. With regard to the second issue, we find that the petitioner has

been filing repeated applications under Section 154 and that this practice is

not to be encouraged. The petitioner has agreed that if he is given an

opportunity of hearing in respect of his application under Section 154,

which was dismissed on 26.04.2005, no further applications under Section

154 would be filed in respect of the very same order. He also undertook

that the fourth application, which has purportedly been filed under Section

154 of the said Act, could also be deemed to have been withdrawn.

5. Considering the chequered history of this case and the somewhat

convoluted facts, we are of the view that it would serve the ends of justice if

the entire proceedings are cut short and the petitioner is given a final

opportunity to present his case with regard to his application under Section

154, which had been dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.04.2005.

We note from the impugned order itself that the petitioner was not given a

personal hearing before disposing of the said application. Consequently, we

set aside the impugned order dated 26.04.2005 and direct the Commissioner

of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi to grant the opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner and thereafter pass an order on the said application in

accordance with law.

6. We make it clear that the fourth application filed by the

petitioner would be deemed to have been withdrawn. We also make it clear

that this order has been passed under the clear understanding that the

petitioner shall not agitate the question of transfer of the case from Gurgaon

to New Delhi any further nor would he file any further application /

applications under Section 154 of the said Act in respect of the very same

appellate orders, which were passed in appeal Nos.144, 145 and 146/95-96.

7. The petitioner also submits that a date may be fixed for his

appearance before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We direct

that the petitioner shall appear before the Commissioner of Income-tax

(Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi on 24.05.2010 in the first instance. The said

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) would give the petitioner an

opportunity of hearing and then pass the order in accordance with law. In

case the petitioner has any grievance against the said order, it would be

open for him to take recourse to the remedies as available to him under law.

The writ petitions stand disposed of with these directions. Dasti.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K. JAIN, J MAY 05, 2010 dutt