JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. The writ petition and connected writ petitions Nos. 1326, 1345, 1346 and 1349 of 1991, involve similar questions of law and fact and hence are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1330 of 1991 is a partnership firm carrying on the business of carriage, contract and transport. It received a notice dated December 26, 1990, from the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, requiring it to show cause as to why the jurisdiction of the petitioner's case be not transferred from the Income-tax Officer, Dehradun, to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle, Meerut. The petitioner sent a reply in response to the aforesaid show-cause notice and, by the impugned order dated April 25, 1991 (annexure 4 to the petition), the cases of the petitioner-firm have been transferred from the Income-tax Officer, Dehradun, to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle, Meerut. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated April 25, 1991.
3. The main point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reasons given in the impugned order, viz., proper and co-ordinated investigation, is not a valid reason for passing the impugned order.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. A perusal of the same indicates that there is a group of concerns of Bhatia Family and a search was conducted by the Department on August 30, 1990, at the residence of various members of the Bhatia Family. Looking to the magnitude of the work, complications involved and the inter linked material found during the course of search, it was thought proper and necessary that all the cases may be centralised with one office at Meerut. The allegations in the counter-affidavit further indicate that, at the time of the search, the inspectors of income-tax were threatened and conditions were created which necessitated the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, to contact the Inspector-General of Police, Meerut, for police help. After the search started, the entire market was closed and stones were pelted on many of the officers including the Income-tax Officer, Dehradun. After the search, some miscreants reached the income-tax office shouting slogans that they had come in search of the Assistant Director of Income-tax who organised the search. During the search, unlicensed arms and gold biscuits were also found. The Income-tax Officers were threatened on a number of occasions and an attempt was made on the life of the Assistant Director of Income-tax. The manager of the bank who gave details of the lockers of the family to the Income-tax Department was also manhandled. During the course of the search, huge quantities of promissory notes, some U.S. dollars, currency notes, gold biscuits, etc., were found and the seized material also showed huge cash credits and datewise transactions of cash and cheques which were not accounted for in the books.
5. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed denying the allegations in the counter-affidavit.
6. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. As held by this court in Peacock Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 182 ITR 98, proper and co-ordinated investigation is a good ground for transfer under Section 127. Since the Bhatia family has several businesses in various names and statuses, it is only proper that there should be coordination in investigation in the affairs of the groups which may have a bearing on the income-tax proceedings. The word "co-ordinate" indicates that there is a need for interlinking various aspects of a group for proper income-tax assessment. Hence, this expression is not vague. In fact, in the income-tax cases of connected business groups or families, it is often convenient to centralise their cases because often these have a bearing on one another. There is, therefore, nothing unreasonable in the impugned order.
7. The petitioner's counsel strongly urged that the cases should not be transferred to Meerut but should remain at Dehradun for, otherwise, the petitioner will face a lot of hardship. We are not inclined to accept this submission. The allegations in the counter-affidavit indicate that threats were given to the Income-tax Officers and difficulties were created in their official work. It becomes thus evident that an Income-tax Officer at Dehradun may not be able to work properly and may get threats in future also. It is hence best if the assessment work of the group is done at a place away from Dehradun.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed before us the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Vijayasanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief CIT [1991] 187 ITR 405 and Saptagiri Enterprises v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 705 in support of his contention that the expression "coordinated investigation" is vague, but in view of the decision of our court in Peacock Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 182 ITR 98 (All), with which we respectfully agree, we are not inclined to follow the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. With regard to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sagarmal Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd, v. CBDT [1972] 83 ITR 130, it may only be mentioned that, subsequently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a contrary view in Maheshwari Lime Works v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 804. The Delhi High Court (sic) has also taken a view which is in consonance with the view of our court.
9. Apart from the legal aspect, we are also not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution as we are of the opinion that, in view of the facts of the case, there is no equity in the petitioner's favour.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.